The KJV and the Inspiration

My humble take on this.

The original Scriptures are God-breathed (inspired).
The true texts are preserved.
The translations are man's work.

 

I agree.

Inspiration = original autographs
Preservation = Hebrew and Greek copies of the autographs
Derivation = translations made from the preserved copies

</font>[/QUOTE]Ahh, c'mon Doc, we're supposed to fight .

 

Ahh, that's more like it.

Now it feels like the BV/T forum again .

 

According to your source (which you
didn't bother to mention) inspiration
is how something is given, not what is given.
So the inspiration of scripture referes to
the giving by God of God's perfect message.
inspiration of Scripture does not pertain
to the results. Anyway, here is a fully
& correctly cited reference:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration
of God, & is profitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instrution in
righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

 

Any of you believe that the KJV is inspired.

Sure is! Every bit as much as the NIV.

 

What about the NWT? Or the LB?

Lacy

 

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

This verse tells us that God has inspired, "all scripture."

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

The Lord implied they had the scriptures at that time, and what He quoted is scripture. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Psalms 118:22-23 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

Here's another example:

Acts 8:32-33 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

If you compare this with Isaiah 53:7-8, it is obvious the eunuch was reading a translation of Isaiah, yet, it is called scripture.

Inspiration extends to accurate translations of scripture. Just because the Hebrew words are carried over into another language, such as Greek, does not mean those words are no longer inspired.

I thank God that I can have confidence that what I read and preach from the scriptures in the English language is just as inspired and powerful as the original Hebrew and Greek words, because those English words are properly carried over from the Hebrew and Greek.

If I don't have the inspired scriptures to bring to a lost and dying world, then what's the sense of preaching? Men may have all kinds of opinions, but what the world needs to hear is what God says.

 

False.

True.

What the KJV and every other faithful version made from reliable source texts "say" is inspired.

However, none of them are inspired in their wording the way the originals were nor were they penned by men qualified biblically to receive inspiration.

The KJV is a faithful translation of the inspired Word of God therefore it is the inspired Word[/i] of God... but "word" in this context is different and distinct from 'individual units of speech made of letters.'

You can say the same thing using different wording within a single language as well as in different languages.

 

I don't know about you all, But it says in my Bible that you are not to take from or add to the holy scriptures.

What do you call the NIV, TLB, NKJV and all the other bibles that have been added to and definitley taken away from?
The KJV is the only true version of the bible that should be preached, taught and read from.
We stopped going to a Baptist church that we attended only 2 times because the preacher preaches from the NIV. I can not in good christian faith go to a church and listen to preaching coming from a bible that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ's involvement. It's not the same.

Thats just my opinion..

Love in Christ,
Jen

 

What are you going to do with all those italicized words in the KJV then?

Please cite the doctrine or teaching that you can prove were in the originals but not in these versions.

Please cite your scripture for this contention.

It is very likely that a church using the NIV and one using the KJV have more of the same substance than any two churches within the first 200 years of church history.

Please cite proof... especially scriptural proof that Christ was involved in the production of the KJV but not the NIV... or that He was directly involved in the production of either.

That is probably your problem. You are allowing yourself to be governed by emotional bias and tradition rather than the actual teachings of God's Word on the subject of scripture.

BTW, I decided not to attend a pretty good IFB church because they used the NIV.

I believe the translation philosophy employed in its making opens the door to interpretation and should be avoided to the greatest degree possible.

 

AKJV1611: I don't know about you all, But it says in my Bible that you are not to take from or add to the holy scriptures.

Every one of my Bibles also says that.

What do you call the NIV, TLB, NKJV and all the other bibles that have been added to and definitley taken away from?

Bible versions.


The KJV is the only true version of the bible that should be preached, taught and read from.

Scripture, please?


We stopped going to a Baptist church that we attended only 2 times because the preacher preaches from the NIV.

Were ya more intent on his bible version than you were his MESSAGE?

I can not in good christian faith go to a church and listen to preaching coming from a bible that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ's involvement. It's not the same.

Me, either. Sure am glad God chose to present His word in several English versions.

Thats just my opinion..

To which you're entitled, here in the USA, even though it's wrong....

 

The KJV takes some words from and adds some words to the translations of the holy Scriptures of which it was a revision. The KJV also does not translate some words found in the Hebrew or Greek texts of which it was a revision. The KJV also adds some words to its text for which there is no word in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages from which the KJV was translated.

Is the KJV-only view an advocate of double standards: a different standard for the KJV than for other translations?

 

What about the NWT? Or the LB?

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Lacy, I tend to stay away from any paraphrse like the Living Bible since I believe that paraphrases are too easily influenced by the beliefs of those "translating" them.

We all know that there are "Bible versions" like the New World Translation and the Seventh Day Adventists' Clear Word Translation that are "translated" with the intent of working non-biblical teachings into the Bible. Almost all of us who accept the "modern versions" have our principles - we don't accept everything that comes out labeled as a "Bible version."