Did God Breathe Out (Inspire) Actual English Words

[Askjo]

"Heavens" is the SKY, which is the meaning of the Hebrew word used here, "shamayim ", as well as the abode of God, depending upon the context. This same word is translated "heavens" in Genesis 2:1 & 4 as well as in other places in the KJV. Thus, your point is dead.

Genesis 1:1 showed that God created "physical" or "visible" things. Genesis 2:1 showed the God finished His work on heavens and earth.

Look at 2 different meanings: heaven and heavens

Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 on the KJV showed heaven then heavens.

Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 on modern versions showed heavens then heavens. The question: Are heavens and heavens same?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Askjo,

Since we are both deaf and English is not our mother language I have two questions to ask you-

When you sign the KJV, do you use perfect KJV English or do you use American Sign Language?

If you use ASL, please explain to me what is the difference between using ASL to translate the Scriptures for the deaf and using a MV translation?

(I do not mean to point out Askjo, but I have always wondered about this point. And since this thread is about 'actual English words I thought it was appropriate.)

 

[robycop3]

That is correct, Nothing wrong with Gen. 2:1. The site said Genesis 1:1.

Same word, same meaning.

 

[robycop3]

Genesis 1:1 showed that God created "physical" or "visible" things. Genesis 2:1 showed the God finished His work on heavens and earth.

Look at 2 different meanings: heaven and heavens

Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 on the KJV showed heaven then heavens.

Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 on modern versions showed heavens then heavens. The question: Are heavens and heavens same?

"Heavens" is the sky, while "heaven" is God's abode. Obviously God's abode existed before the sky.

Askjo, we're still waiting for you to point out White's errors on the other thread.

 

[HankD]

The issue here is whether the KJV or any English Bible or any English words anywhere were "breathed out" (inspired) by God.

As of yet, NO.

The name of the thread is: Did God Breathe Out (Inspire) Actual English Words.

What we can say is that the words of the KJV, NIV, NAS, Douay-Rheims, etc... are English translations of the words that God inspired in The Greek or Hebrew (and some Aramaic).

Can I say that My KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAS etc are the inspired Word of God?

Yes, as long as we all understand that those words are the Word of God by derivation from the inspired words of the original languages.

Just as the Latin words of the Vulgate or the Greek of the LXX are not inspired, so as with any translation.

If we say that somehow the Elizabethan-Jacobian English Words of the 1611 VA are "God-breathed" or inspired we attribute a quality to the translators which would make us give credance to the claim of the Church of England of apostolic succession from Jesus Christ.

It was the Church of England (CoE) through the commission of King James that this translation came into being. It is their property and is so into perpetuity (as long as the CoE exists).

Does any Baptist actually believe that the Church of England possesses (or ever possessed this gift from God)?

Why then did He chose them and not a Baptist Church?

This is also the error of the Church of Rome and their stand concerning the Latin Vulgate (or was at one time) as the Latin of the Vulgate being "the language of heaven".

It should be no wonder to us that God chose to preserve His inspired God-breathed words through faithful manuscript copies of the originals (out of which we have made composites) through the arts and sciences of comparison and collation.

These composites are historical documents and no one group (individual or collective) can make a singular claim to the inspired Word of God.


HankD

 

[Salamander]

This thread is an attack on the KJV and should be closed.

Closing this thread would then become an admission of that truth and that wouldn't be "tolerated".

 

[Salamander]

Askjo,

Since we are both deaf and English is not our mother language I have two questions to ask you-

When you sign the KJV, do you use perfect KJV English or do you use American Sign Language?

If you use ASL, please explain to me what is the difference between using ASL to translate the Scriptures for the deaf and using a MV translation?

(I do not mean to point out Askjo, but I have always wondered about this point. And since this thread is about 'actual English words I thought it was appropriate.)

Then, since it is understood that God breathed equals inspiration, when you use ASL to relate the word of God is it inspired or not?

If it isn't, then why are you spreading something "dead" around?

 

[Askjo]

When you sign the KJV, do you use perfect KJV English or do you use American Sign Language?

Both! When I give the Scriptures to the Deaf or use the Powerpoint where deaf people read the Scriptures, I will use English on what the Scriptures said. After that, I would use ASL for expository comments or what the Scriptures mean.

If you use ASL, please explain to me what is the difference between using ASL to translate the Scriptures for the deaf and using a MV translation?

If any passages agree between the KJV and MV translations, I would. I remember that a deaf pastor, who resigned a deaf church, translated the Scriptures for the deaf and used his MV. Another deaf pastor and I read what this pastor DIFFERENTLY translated from his MV in ASL. What he differently translated the Scriptures from his MV is not to match with what the Scriptures actually said, but he interpreted them. Another pastor and I disagreed with him and left that deaf church.

 

[Askjo]

"Heavens" is the sky, while "heaven" is God's abode. Obviously God's abode existed before the sky.

On my previous post I said, "physical" heaven. You said it is God's abode. Did you see it? If so, where is it?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Both! When I give the Scriptures to the Deaf or use the Powerpoint where deaf people read the Scriptures, I will use English on what the Scriptures said. After that, I would use ASL for expository comments or what the Scriptures mean. If any passages agree between the KJV and MV translations, I would. I remember that a deaf pastor, who resigned a deaf church, translated the Scriptures for the deaf and used his MV. Another deaf pastor and I read what this pastor DIFFERENTLY translated from his MV in ASL. What he differently translated the Scriptures from his MV is not to match with what the Scriptures actually said, but he interpreted them. Another pastor and I disagreed with him and left that deaf church.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I am curious as to what the aforementioned deaf pastor translated from his MV that did not match the Scriptures (by which I assume you mean the KJV), but I do not want to drag this thread off course.

 

[HankD]

On my previous post I said, "physical" heaven. You said it is God's abode. Did you see it? If so, where is it?

One of the theories is that "heavens" (as it is in the Hebrew is dual) Meaning that two heavens are being referenced here.

One is the heaven that the birds fly through and the other the abode of the sun moon and stars.

Why this same word is translated in English Bibles sometimes in the plural and sometimes singular, who knows.

The inspired Hebrew is plural.

Here is a side question we were asked (many years ago) by our theology prof:

If God is eternal and has lived from eternity wouldn't that make his dwelling place eternal and uncreated?


HankD

 

[Askjo]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I am curious as to what the aforementioned deaf pastor translated from his MV that did not match the Scriptures (by which I assume you mean the KJV), but I do not want to drag this thread off course.

It is his own theology that caused the misunderstanding on what the Scriptures said.

On other hand, when a hearing pastor was on vacation, he went to other State and found a famous church there. He listened a hearing pastor of a church preached. After that, he was discouraged. He wrote a detail on this pastor of a church to the sword of the Lord newspaper. I read it and was SHOCKED because I met him before. He explained why this pastor's preaching was very good, but it is not what the Bible said. He knew the Scriptures very well because he read, studied, examined and learned what the Bible said. The reason that he wrote against a pastor in other State is that he caught his different preaching because of his own theology and overlooking what other passages said. I thought his preaching was so great, but I realized his own theology caused the overloooking what the Scriptures said.

No one is perfect.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is his own theology that caused the misunderstanding on what the Scriptures said.

On other hand, when a hearing pastor was on vacation, he went to other State and found a famous church there. He listened a hearing pastor of a church preached. After that, he was discouraged. He wrote a detail on this pastor of a church to the sword of the Lord newspaper. I read it and was SHOCKED because I met him before. He explained why this pastor's preaching was very good, but it is not what the Bible said. He knew the Scriptures very well because he read, studied, examined and learned what the Bible said. The reason that he wrote against a pastor in other State is that he caught his different preaching because of his own theology and overlooking what other passages said. I thought his preaching was so great, but I realized his own theology caused the overloooking what the Scriptures said.

No one is perfect.

Then your problem was with the other deaf pastor's THEOLOGY or lack of study, not what his MV said. Understood.

 

[Askjo]

Then your problem was with the other deaf pastor's THEOLOGY or lack of study, not what his MV said. Understood.

Two pastors were graduated from LU. This pastor's sermon did not match with what the Scriptures said. Another pastor's sermon matched with what the Scriptures said. The difference between them is that MVs and the KJV are not same.

 

[Rippon]

Then your problem was with the other deaf pastor's THEOLOGY or lack of study, not what his MV said. Understood.

Askjo,do think it may be possible for a pastor who uses a good MV (and there's quite the range there)to be more theologically orthodox than some other pastors who pride themselves on using only the KJV (of whatever stripe)but may be heterodox in their beliefs?

 

[Askjo]

One of the theories is that "heavens" (as it is in the Hebrew is dual) Meaning that two heavens are being referenced here.

One is the heaven that the birds fly through and the other the abode of the sun moon and stars.

Are you saying that Heavens on Genesis 1:1 refer to birds, clouds, sun, stars and moon?

If God is eternal and has lived from eternity wouldn't that make his dwelling place eternal and uncreated?

Are you saying that God's home is the physcial heaven?

 

[rbell]

Two pastors were graduated from LU. This pastor's sermon did not match with what the Scriptures said. Another pastor's sermon matched with what the Scriptures said. The difference between them is that MVs and the KJV are not same.

So then the same argument could be made if one pastor had a 1611 KJV and another had a 1823.

 

[EdSutton]

When you sign the KJV, do you use perfect KJV English or do you use American Sign Language?

Both! When I give the Scriptures to the Deaf or use the Powerpoint where deaf people read the Scriptures, I will use English on what the Scriptures said. After that, I would use ASL for expository comments or what the Scriptures mean.

Why is it necessary, in your mind, to explain what the Scriptures mean? Don't they mean what they say?? If the "language" of a version, be it KJV or another, is 'perfect', would not this be an exercise in futility? Or are you inadvertently admitting that the KJV-1611 language (or more probably KJV-1769, that is) is not actually as clear and easily understood in 2008 as you usually seem to make it out to be? Incidentally, when isa someone going to answer my own question about why Dr. Benjamin Blaney, by himself, mainly, should have been the "accepted" one individual to "update" and edit the KJV work of almost 50 scholars, while at the same time, banishing to the scrap heap, such 'revisions' of his own 'revision' by such as Mr. Jay P. Green (KJII, LITV, KJV- 20), Mr. Gary Zoella, (ALT) and/or others? BTW, this is not to question, here, the underlying NT (primarily) text, FTR.

If you use ASL, please explain to me what is the difference between using ASL to translate the Scriptures for the deaf and using a MV translation?

If any passages agree between the KJV and MV translations, I would. I remember that a deaf pastor, who resigned a deaf church, translated the Scriptures for the deaf and used his MV. Another deaf pastor and I read what this pastor DIFFERENTLY translated from his MV in ASL. What he differently translated the Scriptures from his MV is not to match with what the Scriptures actually said, but he interpreted them. Another pastor and I disagreed with him and left that deaf church.

Do you happen to know how "his MV" actually renders the passage? Or is this just that the 'reading' does not 'exactly line up' with the KJV edition you are using? There is a great deal of difference between "interpretation" and "translation", if I recall. Witness the variation between some of the strong Calvinists and equally strong Arminians on the BB, or other doctrinal differences such as "Lordship Salvation" vs. 'free grace' Salvation, for a couple of examples. One of the strongest 'free grace' positions I have seen on the BB comes from one who I would not agree with on the 'versions question', for example, but do fully agree with him on Lordship Salvation. Maybe it is not a 'version' issue, after all, but a theology issue, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. In fact, both you and Mexdeaf have already alluded to this, but then you turn right around with this:

Two pastors were graduated from LU. This pastor's sermon did not match with what the Scriptures said. Another pastor's sermon matched with what the Scriptures said. The difference between them is that MVs and the KJV are not same.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways, here. Either the sermon is a bad interpretation, or the issue is the Scriptures, themselves. And instead of merely making a 'drive-by' allegation, how about giving us the gist of what the issue is/was, with the verses in question? Is that a fair request?

Incidentally, something along this lines came up only last evening in Bible Study, on Hebrews 1:6b, where Apollos writes this. (If one can claim that the anonymous books of the four Gospels, Acts, and II and III John are written by the particular individual they think it happens to be, then I can do the same for the book of Hebrews!)

“ Let all the angels of God worship Him.”[a](Heb. 1:6b - NKJV)
And let all the angels of God worship him. (Heb. 1:6b - KJV)

This quote comes from Deut. 32:43b, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, or nearly the same reading is found in the LXX, but it is not found in the Masoretic Text, from what I've been able to ascertain.

So which is the correct reading, here of Deut. 32:43b? Is it the Masoretic text, which O would suggest has apparently, inadvertently "removed" these words, from the Hebrew originals that God, the Holy Spirit, inspired Apollos to quote? Or is it the LXX and DSS, which I personally believe it to be, here, considering the fact that it is indeed quoted by Apollos, under the leading of the Holy Spirit?

I have previously asked a similar question about Lk. 4: 16-17 and Isa. 61:1-2, while receiving no response, FTR. This is also still a valid question, as well.

Ed

 

[Salamander]

Why is it necessary, in your mind, to explain what the Scriptures mean? Don't they mean what they say?? If the "language" of a version, be it KJV or another, is 'perfect', would not this be an exercise in futility? Or are you inadvertently admitting that the KJV-1611 language (or more probably KJV-1769, that is) is not actually as clear and easily understood in 2008 as you usually seem to make it out to be? Incidentally, when isa someone going to answer my own question about why Dr. Benjamin Blaney, by himself, mainly, should have been the "accepted" one individual to "update" and edit the KJV work of almost 50 scholars, while at the same time, banishing to the scrap heap, such 'revisions' of his own 'revision' by such as Mr. Jay P. Green (KJII, LITV, KJV- 20), Mr. Gary Zoella, (ALT) and/or others? BTW, this is not to question, here, the underlying NT (primarily) text, FTR.Do you happen to know how "his MV" actually renders the passage? Or is this just that the 'reading' does not 'exactly line up' with the KJV edition you are using? There is a great deal of difference between "interpretation" and "translation", if I recall. Witness the variation between some of the strong Calvinists and equally strong Arminians on the BB, or other doctrinal differences such as "Lordship Salvation" vs. 'free grace' Salvation, for a couple of examples. One of the strongest 'free grace' positions I have seen on the BB comes from one who I would not agree with on the 'versions question', for example, but do fully agree with him on Lordship Salvation. Maybe it is not a 'version' issue, after all, but a theology issue, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. In fact, both you and Mexdeaf have already alluded to this, but then you turn right around with this:Sorry, you can't have it both ways, here. Either the sermon is a bad interpretation, or the issue is the Scriptures, themselves. And instead of merely making a 'drive-by' allegation, how about giving us the gist of what the issue is/was, with the verses in question? Is that a fair request?

Incidentally, something along this lines came up only last evening in Bible Study, on Hebrews 1:6b, where Apollos writes this. (If one can claim that the anonymous books of the four Gospels, Acts, and II and III John are written by the particular individual they think it happens to be, then I can do the same for the book of Hebrews!)This quote comes from Deut. 32:43b, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, or nearly the same reading is found in the LXX, but it is not found in the Masoretic Text, from what I've been able to ascertain.

So which is the correct reading, here of Deut. 32:43b? Is it the Masoretic text, which O would suggest has apparently, inadvertently "removed" these words, from the Hebrew originals that God, the Holy Spirit, inspired Apollos to quote? Or is it the LXX and DSS, which I personally believe it to be, here, considering the fact that it is indeed quoted by Apollos, under the leading of the Holy Spirit?

I have previously asked a similar question about Lk. 4: 16-17 and Isa. 61:1-2, while receiving no response, FTR. This is also still a valid question, as well.

Ed

Why not just ask a question and leave out all the hoopla attached?

Why would any Christian ever sugest that no one explain to the listeners what the text means? That would be an ideal that would limit the ones hearing to be subject to their spiritual state to forever exist in a lost condition prior to hearing the preached word!

You do deserve the chance to retract what you've said, else we can only conclude you to pit intellectual abilities against the promptings and leadings of the Spirit!

Your ideal goes specifically against Romans 10:14.

I can't wait to see Askjo's response.

 

[HankD]

Are you saying that Heavens on Genesis 1:1 refer to birds, clouds, sun, stars and moon? Are you saying that God's home is the physcial heaven?

Dear askjo, please look again at the post...

I said "one of the theories..." I didn't affirm or deny that I believed it.

This is the point :

The inspired Hebrew uses plural, the uninspired English uses singular.

Let us for a moment assume that the inspired Hebrew is correct and the the English is in error (yes, I am being facetious).

Now, let us suppose that if of those two heavens in Genesis 1:1, one is the abode of God (remember the Scripture plainly declares that He created it) where then did God reside before He created one of HaShamayim?

If God created the heavens, then He must have been outside of them before the creation. Where was He?

Why after all eternity did He decide to create a place to dwell?

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.​

Same word, so whatever Shamayim is, it is a created entity and God is in it and it has duality either in essence or function.​

Same word, but does it refer to the same place?​

So, accepting the assumption that it is the same place as noted in Genesis 1:1, I suppose one might say He wanted to be with or near His material creation. This seems logically flawed.​

As another aside, Paul indicated that there were 7 heavens.

My posts concerning "the heavens" of Genesis 1:1 are not so much a declaration of doctrine but a presentation of questions to stimulate your grey matter about the original question:

"Did God Breathe Out (Inspire) Actual English Words)?

So, I ask you what is/are the heavens that our God created and where He "is"?

Why does He want to dwell in a created place?

Where was He before He created it?

Is it indeed a created place as Genesis 1:1 plainly seems to indicate?

Finally, is the incorrect singular number of the English word "heaven" of some English Bibles at Genesis 1:1 inspired?


HankD