Did God Breathe Out (Inspire) Actual English Words

[EdSutton]

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.

I asked multiple questions, which I see you do not bother to respond to, but rather prefer to imply that I don't have legit motives in mind. No one, least of all me, have ever suggested that preaching is not Biblical and important, that I've seen, here. However, I do not see from the KJV or any other version that any "one version only - ism" is indicated, in the text! Certainly, the KJV translators did not advocate this, from their own words, that is, not someone else's preference or spin that they have attempted to impart, in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

And in fact, the two instances I cited, both in Hebrews 1:6b and Luke 4:16-17 would indicate exactly the opposite. Apollos writes that God spoke this, putting this quote in the midst of seven Biblical quotes; Jesus "read" from Isaiah. Neither quotes are what is found in the Masoretic text, but since the Holy Spirit regard these words as Scripture, that is certainly good enough for me, even if not for others.

BTW, this rendering can be found in most any 'legit' English version, from what I've seen, thus far, anyway!

And, FTR, why don't you take a stab at why you believe the "editorializing" of Dr. Blaney in the KJV, is to be considered so superior to that of Dr. Thomas Paris, Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, or Mr. Jay P. Green, rather than merely taking a long-distance, sniper's shot at them, collectively?

It is already obvious that you, for one, along with most others, who wish to weigh in on this, do not accept the KJV 1611 (or even the 1769, despite your and their protestations to the contrary, until after you have felt free to excise the Apocrypha, from the rendered and "Authorized" editions), yet you and they somehow imply that others who do not accept the same mutilations of the printed text, are doing something entirely 'un-Biblical'. I guess what is a choice for one remains a "double standard" for another, hunh?

Ed

 

[Salamander]

I asked multiple questions, which I see you do not bother to respond to, but rather prefer to imply that I don't have legit motives in mind.

Since it is become the mainstay to judge other's motives on the BB, I have done nothing but follow suit, by your estimation. I did deal with your comment though, and you would like to continue to avoid a realistic view of expounding the Scriptures.

No one, least of all me, have ever suggested that preaching is not Biblical and important, that I've seen, here. However, I do not see from the KJV or any other version that any "one version only - ism" is indicated, in the text! Certainly, the KJV translators did not advocate this, from their own words, that is, not someone else's preference or spin that they have attempted to impart, in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

You demand it to be in text type when all the while it is in the volume of the Book.

Are you so intelligent that you cannot learn somethintg by principle and precept?

And in fact, the two instances I cited, both in Hebrews 1:6b and Luke 4:16-17 would indicate exactly the opposite. Apollos writes that God spoke this, putting this quote in the midst of seven Biblical quotes; Jesus "read" from Isaiah. Neither quotes are what is found in the Masoretic text, but since the Holy Spirit regard these words as Scripture, that is certainly good enough for me, even if not for others.

OK, so now we are to understand you were present.:laugh:

BTW, this rendering can be found in most any 'legit' English version, from what I've seen, thus far, anyway!

And, FTR, why don't you take a stab at why you believe the "editorializing" of Dr. Blaney in the KJV, is to be considered so superior to that of Dr. Thomas Paris, Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, or Mr. Jay P. Green, rather than merely taking a long-distance, sniper's shot at them, collectively?

For the record, I usually don't subject my understanding of the Scripture to be under the authprity of any man, not even my pastor, and he knows it, and agrees.

I didn't take a "sniper-shot" at anyone. I did confront what you stated.

It is already obvious that you, for one, along with most others, who wish to weigh in on this, do not accept the KJV 1611 (or even the 1769, despite your and their protestations to the contrary, until after you have felt free to excise the Apocrypha, from the rendered and "Authorized" editions), yet you and they somehow imply that others who do not accept the same mutilations of the printed text, are doing something entirely 'un-Biblical'. I guess what is a choice for one remains a "double standard" for another, hunh?

Ed

Nope, you just conccoted another lie. I find no real differences between the two, or three when you include the Cambridge, making exception for typos.

As far as the Apocrypha goes, I have yet to see where anyone, other than catholics, try ot say it is Scripture.

Its inclusion is nothing more than for reference points in the historical area. I think it is nearly vital when consideration of the timeline is taken up.

Only a modern versionist has EVER tried to culminate thie ideal that it was EVER a part of Scripture!:laugh:

 

[Dr. Bob]

As far as the Apocrypha goes, I have yet to see where anyone, other than catholics, try ot say it is Scripture.

Its inclusion is nothing more than for reference points in the historical area. I think it is nearly vital when consideration of the timeline is taken up.

Only a modern versionist has EVER tried to culminate thie ideal that it was EVER a part of Scripture!:laugh:

Just included it smack in the middle of the OT/NT for "historical reference". Whatcha smokin??

Do you actually own a 1611 reprint? Mine says very clearly "DAILY LIST OF SCRIPTURE READING" and then includes, along with OT/NT passages, readings from the Apocrypha. Daily SCRIPTURE reading from Esdras. Oh, my.

English Catholics (baby-baptizing Anglicans that now are looked upon as specially inspired men of God by some warped Baptists, the very people who historically REJECTED the AV) not only must have believed it but PUT IT IN WRITING in the front of their "Anglican Version".

Read your AV1611. Don't just wave it around.

 

[EdSutton]

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

I believe that the number indicated by Paul is 3 heavens, not 7 heavens. (II Cor. 12:2)

Seven heavens is a teaching of Islam, and is found in the Koran.

Seven heavens is not a teaching of Christianity, nor is any such found or implied anywhere in Scripture.

Ed

 

[Jerome]

Seven heavens is a teaching of Islam, and is found in the Koran.

It is also described in the pseudepigraphical Second Book of Enoch.

 

[Logos1560]

As far as the Apocrypha goes, I have yet to see where anyone, other than catholics, try ot say it is Scripture.

Are you unaware of the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604), which have been posted here before?

Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a 1583 conference the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs, p. 327). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (Lives, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3).

Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. Is there any evidence that the KJV translators rebuked or criticized Archbishop Whitgift for publicly maintaining that the books called apocrypha are part of the scriptures? The few Puritans among the KJV translators would have disagreed with such high regard for the Apocrypha. It was Archbishop Whitgift that presided over the crowning of James as king of England in July of 1603.

As Dr. Bob indicated, in the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha.

 

[franklinmonroe]

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

There is only one "heaven" mentioned (seven times, all singular in the KJV) in Genesis Chapter One. Both "heaven" and "earth" are both mentioned in verse 1 before the description of their creation and naming. Yet, it seems very clear that in this passage there is just one "heaven" (the firmament) and just one "earth".

This "heaven" is mentioned at least once in each account of days One through Five. The firmament is made on Day 2 to divide the waters and then named "Heaven" by God. It is used as a reference element in the creation narrative: on Day 3 some waters are gathered below it; on Day 4 lights appear in it; and Day Five the fowl fly through it.

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

(Genesis 1:6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

(Genesis 1:9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.

(Genesis 1:14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

(Genesis 1:20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
...​

 

[Salamander]

Just included it smack in the middle of the OT/NT for "historical reference". Whatcha smokin??

Do you actually own a 1611 reprint? Mine says very clearly "DAILY LIST OF SCRIPTURE READING" and then includes, along with OT/NT passages, readings from the Apocrypha. Daily SCRIPTURE reading from Esdras. Oh, my.

English Catholics (baby-baptizing Anglicans that now are looked upon as specially inspired men of God by some warped Baptists, the very people who historically REJECTED the AV) not only must have believed it but PUT IT IN WRITING in the front of their "Anglican Version".

Read your AV1611. Don't just wave it around.

Funny you should object to Biblical references such as the Apocrypha, all the while you repeatedly make remarks according to references.:laugh:

Have you read the Apocrypha? If yes, then WHY?

 

[Salamander]

Are you unaware of the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604), which have been posted here before?

Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a 1583 conference the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs, p. 327). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (Lives, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3).

Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. Is there any evidence that the KJV translators rebuked or criticized Archbishop Whitgift for publicly maintaining that the books called apocrypha are part of the scriptures? The few Puritans among the KJV translators would have disagreed with such high regard for the Apocrypha. It was Archbishop Whitgift that presided over the crowning of James as king of England in July of 1603.

As Dr. Bob indicated, in the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha.

Reading it is not the same, you know that.

I read many commentaries that help my understanding of the Scriptures, the Apocrypha doesn't "hurt" the understanding, it enhances it.:godisgood:

 

[Askjo]

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

The issue of the Scriptures affects the preaching/teaching and the theology because of which Bible we use.

 

[TrustingInHim]

I am an independent fundamental Baptist, but NOT KJV only! If people can be saved from the reading of most English translations (not all are honest translations), than God has inspired His Message for the ages, not a particular translation. A friend of mine suggested that to believe that a translation is 'inspired' is almost like idolatry if not the same thing. I know that's a harsh thing to state, but I have attended KJV churches and something seems missing. I have great concern over Godly Christians who really believe this false idea which can prevent spiritual growth.

Thanks for this post. :thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

I am an independent fundamental Baptist, but NOT KJV only! If people can be saved from the reading of most English translations (not all are honest translations), than God has inspired His Message for the ages, not a particular translation. A friend of mine suggested that to believe that a translation is 'inspired' is almost like idolatry if not the same thing. I know that's a harsh thing to state, but I have attended KJV churches and something seems missing. I have great concern over Godly Christians who really believe this false idea which can prevent spiritual growth.

Thanks for this post. :thumbs:

Let me be among the first to say, "Welcome to the Baptist Board!" :wavey:

Ed

 

[Salamander]

As I recall, Ed, you've never welcomed me to the BB.:tear:

Having a standard which to memorize Scripture which is most familiar to all is never idolatry.

Suggesting such is arrogant and usually comes from unlearned peoples when they have hardly even considered the implications of a vast variety of versions in one tongue as to confuse people as to what is the word of God and what is simply a commentary.

Commentaries are derived inspiration from that which IS inspired.

We just believe in maintaining the standard while others keep throwing goldfish into the bathwater with guppies.

 

[rbell]

Sal, you may not be on the right side of the argument, but at least your metaphors are funny.

 

[Askjo]

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.

The old KJV is perfect for everyone who speaks English available today because the KJV is used by most believers since almost 400 years.
When 2011 comes, we will celebrate the KJV for 400 years.

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:

The issue of the Scriptures is to affect the teaching because of which Bible we use.

 

[robycop3]

Sal:Having a standard which to memorize Scripture which is most familiar to all is never idolatry.

Regardless of which valid versions are used.

Suggesting such is arrogant and usually comes from unlearned peoples when they have hardly even considered the implications of a vast variety of versions in one tongue as to confuse people as to what is the word of God and what is simply a commentary.

Please show us SCRIPTURE which limits GOD to just one translation in one tongue, and which names that translation. Otherwise, you're fantasizing.

Commentaries are derived inspiration from that which IS inspired.

Regardless of which valid version(s) it's from.

We just believe in maintaining the standard while others keep throwing goldfish into the bathwater with guppies.

While Salamanders might bathe with goldfish & guppies, mosta us prefer a bath free of any other living things beside ourselves. Your 'standard' is the result of subscribing to a MAN-MADE doctrine, found in NO valid Bible version in any language.

 

[Rippon]

The old KJV is perfect for everyone who speaks English available today because the KJV is used by most believers since almost 400 years.

Of course you can hardly type (or understand)current English,much less archaic English.Everyone who speaks English is not neccesarily a good candidate for a KJV.
Should the Vulgate be used today because it's been around a lot longer than the KJV's?

When 2011 comes, we will celebrate the KJV for 400 years.

Do you plan to be living until 2411?!

 

[EdSutton]

As I recall, Ed, you've never welcomed me to the BB.:tear:

Likely because you were already here half a year before I arrived.

But hopefully, I have not made anyone feel UN-welcome.

And if, by chance, I have ever made anyone feel unwelcome, that was never my intent.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

The old KJV is perfect for everyone who speaks English available today because the KJV is used by most believers since almost 400 years.

Shouldest that bee the case, then why dost thou not speake and spelle as didst the KJV translators with your neighbors? Oh, wait a minute! Makest that "thy neighbours." Incidentally, I am not ridiculing you, in any manner, as I do understand that you are, in fact, a deaf individual, and happen to understand at least two languages. The point is, that neither you nor I would speak and spell in the manner of Jacobean English, in our everyday language. Nor would any you come in contact with do so, either. Whatever happened to the desire and goal, as expressed by William Tyndale?

When 2011 comes, we will celebrate the KJV for 400 years.

And? 'Proving' exactly what??

We have already celebrated, in our nation's lifetime (and incidentally, 5 years before the founding of the SBC), the Bible in the English language of the people of that day (granted, 'Middle' English, at that time) for twice as long as the KJV had even been around, with the Wycliffe Bible (WYC) in ~1840.

Consider that, in 2011, the WYC will still have been around for more than half again as long as the KJV, at ~629 years; the Geneva Bible will have already been with us for 10% longer, at 441 years, and the Tyndale NT (Remember that one?? The first one in early "Modern" English??) will have been with us for 488 years, or more than a fifth longer than the KJV.

How about the Vulgate? (384) That's over 1720 years, and counting, for all the math whizzes out there. Not very up to date to most of us today, and in a 'dead language' to boot, but certainly anything but that, in 384 A.D. in the world, at that time.

Howe about the Luther Bibel? Two years before Tyndale, making it a Biblically significant number of 490 years, if my math skills happen to serve. BTW, "Bibel" is not a typo.

The issue of the Scriptures is to affect the teaching because of which Bible we use.

You have directly made this 'charge' at least twice, and maybe 3 times, that I know of, plus alluded to this numerous times, beyond that. I am still waiting for a bit of evidence, to legitimately back this up. More than I have asked for this evidence, without thus far, getting a response.

Should I expect any, this time, either??

Ed

 

[Salamander]

Sal:Having a standard which to memorize Scripture which is most familiar to all is never idolatry.

Regardless of which valid versions are used.

Ok, quote I John 5 in perfect detail from ALL your "valid" versions.

Suggesting such is arrogant and usually comes from unlearned peoples when they have hardly even considered the implications of a vast variety of versions in one tongue as to confuse people as to what is the word of God and what is simply a commentary.

Please show us SCRIPTURE which limits GOD to just one translation in one tongue, and which names that translation. Otherwise, you're fantasizing.

Try the entire translation as Scriptural proof.

I see you don't mind the variety wordings to be able to "pick and choose" Burger King comes to mind for some strange reason.

Commentaries are derived inspiration from that which IS inspired.

Regardless of which valid version(s) it's from.

May we see your processes to validate versions and where did you get the credentials?

We just believe in maintaining the standard while others keep throwing goldfish into the bathwater with guppies.

While Salamanders might bathe with goldfish & guppies, mosta us prefer a bath free of any other living things beside ourselves. Your 'standard' is the result of subscribing to a MAN-MADE doctrine, found in NO valid Bible version in any language.

There it is folks, Roby wants to kill everything that makes water the life-giving substance God wants it to be!

What he is saying is that man adds things to "kill-off" what he is displeased with in the "water" of the word. He does this by alteration of the chemical make-up of the things found in life-giving water.

Tell me, when has the Lord EVER left all men unsure of life?