Was Jesus considering this 'book' inspired, or what?

LUKE 4:20; "And He closed the book,
and He gave it again to the minister, and sat down.

And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him."

Was Jesus considering this 'book' inspired, or what?

KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

 

"WHAT IS GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE?
EDWARD J. YOUNG

from: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/grace-journal/07-3_13.pdf

"In our last lecture we sought to show,
upon the basis of an exposition of 2 Timothy 3: 16,
that all Scripture is both God-breathed and profitable.

The teaching of the verse is so clear that
there would seem to be little reason for question.

What Timothy teaches is beyond dispute.

Why, then, are not all Christian people willing to agree
upon the clear and simple teaching of the epistle?

Why do even evangelicals sometimes refuse to come to grips
with what the Bible so plainly asserts respecting itself?

Why do some insist that there are errors in the Bible,
still maintaining that the phenomena of the Scriptures alone
must guide us in accepting a proper view?

The Original Copies of Scripture.

Perhaps one answer to the above questions
may be found in the fact that in the copies of the Scriptures
now in our possession there are minor errors, and hence,
it is assumed, these errors were probably also in the original copies.

There are men who refuse to accept the position
that in the original copies (the so-called autographa) of the Bible
we have works that are entirely free from error.

All too often, it is asserted that an appeal to the originals
is really a flight from reality.

We do not have these originals, so the argument runs;
how then do we know that they are errorless?

How can we say of them that they are infallible and inerrant?

An appeal to the originals is too often discarded
as being unworthy of consideration.

Nevertheless, we must consider the originals.

Of course, it is true that we today do not possess these autographa;
it is perfectly true that we have not seen them
nor has any living man seen them.

Does it, therefore, follow that an appeal to them
is merely a way out of the difficulty?

The present copies of the Bible do contain errors,
we must acknowledge, and so we appeal to the originals
which we have never seen.

Is not this merely an escape from difficulty?

It might seem that such were indeed the case;
that is, at first sight it might appear to be so,
until we begin to investigate the question more closely.

And as an introduction to the question
we may well consider again the language of Paul to Timothy.

When Paul makes his double statement about all Scripture,
what Scripture precisely does he have in mind?

When he declares that all Scripture is God-breathed
and that it is profitable, of what Scripture is he speaking?

Is he referring to the copies of the Bible that were extant in his day
or is he referring to the autographa?

In the little work to which we have already made reference,
Professor Beegle asserts that the extant manuscripts of Scripture
were regarded as being the same as the originals
because the attribute of theopneustos applied pennanently to them.

Paul, he tells us, "--probably never thought
in terms of the technical distinction between /13 14 GRACE JOURNAL/
the autographs and copies of Scripture" (op. cit., p. 29).

Nor does Paul, we are told, make any special claims
for or characterize the originals in such a way
as would set them apart Ifrom the copies of the Bible
that were extant in his own day.

No explicit statements in the New 'I Testament, we are told,
single out the autographs as being different
from the copies of the Bible which the church of Paul's day knew.

Nor does the New Testament anywhere teach
that copies of the Scriptures are not inspired.

In one passage, Professor Beegle explicitly states
that Paul was thinking in terms of the extant manuscripts,
namely, 2 Timothy 3: 16.

1 We are grateful to Professor Beegle
for thus setting the issue clearly before us.

His words require considerable comment
and cannot be dismissed offhand.

Basically, then, the question that is often raised
may be stated as follows:

"When Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3: 16,
was he thinking of the copies of the Bible then extant,
and so what he wrote concerning the Scripture
applies to those copies. "

more references: BiblicalStudies.org.uk: Inspiration of the Bible

 

from: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/ot_wenham.pdf

"When we turn to the teaching of our Lord as recorded in the Gospels,
we have a wealth of relevant material coming from all four Gospels
and from all the four major strata — Mark, Q, special Matthew,
special Luke — of the synoptic Gospels.

We are not confined simply to two or three key statements,
but we have a host of quotations and allusions
thrown up spontaneously from a great variety of situations,
and these are often the more telling
for revealing His basic assumptions
rather than His specific teachings.

We can hear Christ preaching to the multitude and instructing disciples,
refuting opponents and answering enquirers;

we can hear Him in His private conflict with the tempter
at the beginning of the ministry and in His final instructions
prior to the ascension.

As we proceed it will, I believe, become clear that,
throughout the whole range of the material,
His attitude is consistent and unchanging.

We shall examine in turn His attitude to the truth of the history,
to the authority of the teaching and to the inspiration of the writing.

As the evidence is assembled, it will, I believe,
lead us to a firm and objective historical conclusion.

We shall see that to Christ the Old Testament was true,
authoritative, inspired.

To Him the God of the Old Testament was the living God
and the teaching of the Old Testament
was the teaching of the living God.

To Him, what Scripture said, God said. [p.9]

II. THE TRUTH OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Let us examine then, first of all,
His attitude to the historical narratives of the Old Testament.

He consistently treats them as straightforward records of facts.

We have references to:

Abel 2 Here I echo a phrase of B. B. Warfield (Revelation and Inspiration, O.U.P. New York. 1927. p. 92). (Lk. xi. 51),

Noah (Mt. xxiv. 37-39; Lk. xvii. 26, 27),

Abraham (Jn. viii. 56), the institution of circumcision (Jn. vii. 22; cf. Gn. xvii. 10-12; Lv. xii. 3),

Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt. x. 15, xi. 23, 24; Lk. x. 12),

Lot (Lk. xvii. 28-32),

Isaac and Jacob (Mt. viii. 11; Lk. xiii. 28),

the manna (Jn. vi. 31, 49, 58),

the wilderness serpent (Jn. iii. 14),

David eating the shewbread (Mt. xii. 3, 4; Mk. ii. 25, 26; Lk. vi. 3, 4)

and as a Psalm-writer (Mt. xxii. 43; Mk. xii. 36; Lk. xx. 42),

Solomon (Mt. vi. 29, xii. 42; Lk. xi. 31, xii. 27),

Elijah (Lk. iv. 25, 26),

Elisha (Lk. iv. 27),

Jonah (Mt. xii. 39-41; Lk. xi. 29, 30, 32),

Zachariah (Lk. xi. 51).

This last passage brings out His sense of the unity of history
and His grasp of its wide sweep.

His eye surveys the whole course of history
from ‘the foundation of the world’ to ‘this generation’.

There are repeated references to Moses as the giver of the law
(Mt. viii. 4, xix. 8; Mk. i. 44, vii. 10, x. 5, xii. 26; Lk. v. 14, xx. 37; Jn. v. 46, vii. 19);

the sufferings of the prophets are also mentioned frequently (Mt. v. 12, xiii. 57, xxi. 34-36, xxiii. 29-37; Mk. vi. 4 (cf. Lk. iv. 24; Jn. iv. 44), xii. 2-5; Lk. vi. 23, xi. 47-51, xiii. 34. xx. 10-12);

and there is a reference to the popularity of the false prophets (Lk. vi. 26).

He sets the stamp of His approval on passages in Gn. i and ii (Mt. xix. 4, 5; Mk. x. 6-8.)

Although these quotations are taken by our Lord
more or less at random from different parts of the Old Testament
and some periods of the history are covered more fully than others,
it is evident that He was familiar with most of our Old Testament
and that He treated it all equally as history.

Curiously enough, the narratives
that proved least acceptable to what was known a generation
or two ago as ‘the modern mind’ are the very ones
that He seemed most fond of choosing for His illustrations."