Theopneutos: Inspired by God or God-breathed?

I like HCSB: "All Scripture is inspired by God..." the best. Having it like ESV: "All Scripture is breathed out by God..." is closer to original greek and more literal in a way. But inspiried by is more easy to understand and in a way more a more straight forward literal translation.

My favorite Swedish translation Folkbibeln "Hela Skriften är utandad av Gud..." wich is equal to ESV: "All Scripture is breathed out by God...".

One good thing with ESV: "All Scripture is breathed out by God..." is that it give a key to understand the "Did God breath again?" KJV only discussion.

 

How so? I don't get what you're saying here. (I'm not KJVO in case you're wondering.)

 

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Lloyd Perry and Robert Culver suggested that the words “is given by” are “an interpolated interpretation--intended to help translate, but joined with ’inspiration,’ really being a rather inept carry-over from the Latin Vulgate.” They added: “The situation is thus: The first clause of verse 16 in Greek is pasa (all) graphe (scripture) theopneustos (God-breathed). The clause requires the supply of ’is’ between ’scripture’ and ’God-breathed’ for translation into English. Hence we should read, ’All scripture (is) God-breathed’” (How to Search the Scriptures, pp. 59-60). The Latin Vulgate as found in Coverdale’s 1538 Latin-English N. T. began 2 Timothy 3:16 as follows: “Omnis scriptura divintus inspirata.“ Edward Young wrote: “Now the term inspiration is, in the humble opinion of the present writer, not a happy one. The word inspiration means that which is breathed in. It come to us from the Latin, and in the Latin translation of the Bible, commonly known as the Vulgate, is used as a rendering of the Greek theopneustos (God-breathed). We are not satisfied with this translation, for the English word inspiration as has just been remarked, means a ‘breathing in,’ and, as we have seen, that is not at all what Paul intends to say.” Young added: “The Scriptures, Paul vigorously asserts, are writings which came into being because they were breathed out by God Himself” (Thy Word is Truth, pp. 21-22). Benjamin Warfield claimed: “There is, we may well admit, nothing in the word theopneustos to warrant the in- of the Vulgate rendering: this word speaks not of an ’inspiration’ by God, but of a ’spiration’ by God” (Inspiration, p. 277).

 

Some people think God breathed once again in the translation of the KJV, therefore the KJV should be equally inspired as the greek originals. Strange thought for me.

 

Yes, very strange. Thanks for explaining that.

 

Is there any correlation between the fact that God breathed into man, and man became a living Soul

And God breathing the Bible?

I have been wondering about this...

 

Somebody find Adam's body and do an autopsy to see if there's paper in his lungs. Wait, that would be skin, right? Or copper? Or stone? I'm confused.

 

I must congratulate the ESV for producing good modern English translation here, and may be more understandable than the NIV's too-literal rendering (as is Young's, ALT, and some others).

First, the KJV and other pre-19th century versions ought not be accused of being inaccurate, in that, the archaic meaning of "inspire" was to breathe on or to breathe life into (infuse); an acceptable way to articulate this idea.

Second, the modern reader's conception of the English word "inspire" (as elicitation or arousal) generally misses the complete understanding of the underlying Greek. "Breathed out" could make a reader recognize God's intimate participation in the process. For these two reasons, I think the NASB and HCSB had no excuse to employ "inspired".

 

Contending for ancient nuances

I do not like what the Geneva Bible says about Kings; make another translation: a paraphrase of what James I may have decreed to his translators.

We have a sizeable quantity of English translations of Holy Writ. Some of the modern versions seem to water down some of the basic doctrines. If one looks at this issue with the paradigm: translators are not inspired, one can understand that the human error is readily apparent. If one also considers that the Bible is not written to the lost and is most assuredly spiritually discerned, any apparent discrepancies are surely irrelevant. God has spoken, man is without excuse regardless of his native tongue. God can save you in Swahili if that is what you speak. His Word does not return void--even in a New World Translation. God pulls us out of the pit using what ever tongue necessary.

I am partial to the KJV-1611 as revised, even though they did not translate baptizo--they were practicing infant sprinklers, aka: pedobaptists; makes sense, but this also negates the notion that God inspires translations. (Baptizo means to immerse) God is not the author of confusion.

If we would stop trying to make the scripture fit our preconceived notions of what it ought to say, we would have a lot more sound doctrine; maybe more empty pews, maybe not.

Preach the Word.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Who Really Cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

What is with “I Like” "I am Partial” “I do not like” “But I tend to Like” “My favorite”

This is sad! really, who cares what we as corrupt un-Holy sinners like and don’t like. I wonder what God wants. :jesus:

GOD SAID IT THAT SETTLES IT!!!!!!!!!:love2: :love2:


Just an observation Ehud

 

Since God said it, what does "God-breathed" or "inspired" mean?

Rob

 

I'm just glad that God is well enough to be able to preserve that inspired word of His without error in any language.

Harmony of the Scriptures declares this.:godisgood:

Disharmony of the Scriptures admits this.raying: :wavey: