Only the Originals Are Inspired

[SGO]

The Originals alone are Inerrant, but translations are infallible!

Where is your proof?
Only your teachers taught this to you.
Did they prove it?

 

[Yeshua1]

I deplore the multiplicity of modern translations, but for a far different reason than most who take that view. My view is that there are far too many English versions when there are still over 3,000 languages in this world with not even a single verse translated into them. There are many people groups waiting and hoping and praying for someone to translate the Bible for them. I know of a people group in Papua New Guinea which is mostly Christian now, but still have no Bible. Yet some scholar in America pops up and says, "We need a new Bible in English," or, "We need to do a revision of the translation we did five years ago." I believe God is not pleased by this!
No, not "whatever version." Not until I can compare it with the original language Biblre God gave us. No translation--including the effort I led to get a TR translation into Japanese--is the Word of God except as it accurately translates the original.


I say the original language OT and NT are inspired to the exact extent that they reflect the original manuscripts. God preserves His Word in the original languages. That is very clear from Scripture. For example, in Gal. 3:16 Paul wrote, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Paul was clearly putting the authority in the Hebrew OT there.

Again, in various passages you have the Hebrew or Aramaic quoted, then a translation given. This shows me that in the Bible itself, the wording of the original languages is vital. Here are two examples from Revelation:

Rev. 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Rev. 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Not sure what you mean here.

They have not been discovered in 400 years. Pretty sure they don't exist.


Absolutely.


So many of these discussions make big claims without using the Word of God itself to get there. Many years ago I decided to go to the Bible itself for answers, and did a systematic study of my own, and that's where my bibliology comes from--the Bible.

Would say that there is a general consensus among us that we can have confidence in many translations, including the Kjv and many modern versions, but there seems to be strong feelings pro kjv and pro Modern translations!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am really referring the the Old Testament quotes that Jesus and the apostles read and quoted, not to the New Testament writings. And yes, after the bible I do not think there has been any more divine revelation.

This also brings in the issue that it appears that the Holy Spirit revealed secondary meanings sometimes to the OT texts being quoted, such as Out of Egypt God called His Son , meant isreal but was applied towards Jesus now!

 

[Yeshua1]

Where is your proof?
Only your teachers taught this to you.
Did they prove it?

Do you know of any verse that supports inspiration beyond the Apostles, or aware of any complete Hebrew/Greek text with no errors/mistakes at all in them?

 

[SGO]

No, not beyond the New Testament writings. That is why I started this thread to see if there is any scriptural proof of the statement, ONLY the Old Testament and New Testament originals are inspired.

Did not Jesus and the apostles quote in their writings, from Old Testament copies? Why did they then say that the copies were "scripture" and that you could get eternal life from reviewing them?

Well, because they are the word of God. They are not the originals.

 

[George Antonios]

Jesus stated that ONLY the Apostles of His would be inspired by the Holy Spirit, as it ended with their deaths no ongoing inspiration!

You just ignored the references.

 

[Yeshua1]

You just ignored the references.

Did Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. and bring to their minds full recall?

 

[Logos1560]

• Bible verses referring to translated copies as given by inspiration: Proverbs 25:1, Luke 4:21, John 5:39, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 2Timothy 3:15, 1Peter 2:6, 2Peter 1:19-20.

None of the verses to which you appeal actually state that any Bible translation made after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God would also be made by the same supernatural process of inspiration.

Proverbs 25:1 referred to a copying of proverbs, but it says nothing about translating. 2 Timothy 3:15 says nothing about translation. You attempt to make an incorrect assumption or use an invalid comparison since any translating that was part of the giving of the New Testament to the apostles and NT prophets was a direct part of the process of the giving of the NT Scriptures by inspiration of God so that it is not at all the same as translating after the end of this process of the giving of the NT by inspiration. Do you ignore and dodge the fact that the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God is connected to the prophets and apostles?

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16). The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

 

[SGO]

Were the Old Testament copies that Jesus and the other New Testament folk used uninspired?
They were only copies.
Why are they referred to as "scripture"?
Why not referred to as "copies of scripture"?

Why do we all refer to our modern translations as "scripture" and not "translations of multi copied scripture"?

 

[Logos1560]

The Scriptures nowhere state the process of the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures would be by inspiration of God.

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3).

Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). David Cloud noted: “The process of inspiration was something that was completed in the apostolic age” (Faith, p. 55). D. A. Waite wrote: “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Waite wrote: “The originals were given by the process of inspiration” (p. 47). Waite noted: “It is true that the process of inspiration applies only to the autographs and resulted in inspired Words—the original Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek being given by God’s process of breathing out His Words” (p. 56). Steve Combs wrote: “A clear statement of the process and product of inspiration is found in Matthew 4:4” (Practical Theology, p. 34). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Jack McElroy wrote: “Sounds like inspiration is a method or process, doesn’t it?” (Which Bible, p. 238). Charles Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Thomas Strouse wrote: “Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 43). Thomas Strouse noted: “The Holy Ghost came upon holy but fallible men so that they were Divinely moved (pheromenoi) in the process of inspiration to produce the product of inspiration, namely the autographa” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 240). In his note on 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter Ruckman asserted: “The process of ‘inspiration’ is the Holy Spirit breathing His words through somebody’s mouth (2 Pet. 1:21) and these words then being written down” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 1591). Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32). Does 2 Timothy 3:16 state how scripture is given? Gordon Clark observed: “In ordinary language the word how always refers to a process” (Religion, Reason, p. 138). Did the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to God to the prophets and apostles end with the completion of the New Testament?

 

[SavedByGrace]

If, as it is argued by some, the Original Autographs that were written by the Authors of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, which we as Evangelical, born-again Christians fully accept; are not the ONLY to have been "Inspired" by God the Holy Spirit, "θεοπνευστος", then we might as well forget that the Bible that we have in our possession, is indeed the Infallible, Inerrant, Word of Almighty God!

Firstly, both the Old and New Testament Cannons are closed. That means, ONLY the 66 Books that are in the so-called Protestant Bible, are Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Period.

Secondly, this means that the books in the so-called "Apocrypha", for both the Old and New Testaments, are NOT Inspired by the Holy Spirit, and must be rejected by all God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians. The "bible" used by the Roman Catholics, include some of these Apocrypha books, like Judith, Esdras, Bel and the Dragon, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiastes, etc, etc. There are also a number of books that are in NT times, which some argue should be in the NT Cannon, like, the gospel of Thomas, 3 Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans, etc, etc NONE of these have ANY Inspiration by God the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, NO translation of either the Old or New Testemants into other languages, like the Greek Septuigent, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Bishops Bible, King James Bible, New International, English Standard, etc, etc, regardless of how good they might be, and how accurate they claim to be to the originals, they are NOT Inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore can NEVER be in the same class as the Original Autographs, which ALONE are θεοπνευστο!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I say that any original language mss, and any translation is God's inerrant Word to the exact extent that it mirrors the original

this is nothing more than conjecture! many of the original language mss are full of corruptions, and are only COPIES that were made by scribes, so they cannot "mirror the originals". Take 1 Timothy 3:16, where θεος has been corrupted to ὃς, both readings are found in Greek mss. Which one "mirrors" the original? "Any translation" is just that, a "translation", made by people who were not always faithful to the original.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Were the Old Testament copies that Jesus and the other New Testament folk used uninspired?

an IMPOSSIBILITY!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I would like to know if this statement is in the bible or originates from the mind of men because I cannot find it in the scripture.

do you personally believe that ONLY the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, are Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and are based on the Original Autographs that we have in our possession?

I am fully aware that we do not have the Original Autographs of either Testament, but only coipes that have come down to us. However, I am of the belief that God in His Providence, is able to preserve in some of these "copies", what was originally written by the Authors.

Versions like the King James, (without the additional books of the Apocrypha, which were included for study purposes), have stood the test of time, over 400 years, and is accepted around the world as being faithful to the "Originals" as can be. Even versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, etc, agree in the most part with the KJV, even though they uses different Hebrew and Greek texts for their translations. The differences in most places are quite minor, though 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, are the major corruptions in modern versions.

 

[SGO]

I am fully aware that we do not have the Original Autographs of either Testament, but only coipes that have come down to us. However, I am of the belief that God in His Providence, is able to preserve in some of these "copies", what was originally written by the Authors.

This is a very good hope to have with which we could more easily cling to God.

 

[SavedByGrace]

This is a very good hope to have with which we could more easily cling to God.

I am not understanding your reasoning here? Are you suggesting that because the Bible that we have today, is not the actual Autographs of the Writers of the Books in the Bible, that it is not completely reliable? In this case, our faith in the "God" that you say, that we should "cling to", may also be a misguided faith, as the Bible that tells us about this God, might be faulty?

 

[John of Japan]

this is nothing more than conjecture! many of the original language mss are full of corruptions, and are only COPIES that were made by scribes, so they cannot "mirror the originals". Take 1 Timothy 3:16, where θεος has been corrupted to ὃς, both readings are found in Greek mss. Which one "mirrors" the original? "Any translation" is just that, a "translation", made by people who were not always faithful to the original.

You missed where I said, "...to the exact extent that they mirror the originals." This way of stating it presupposes that there are mss that mirror the original in a lesser way.

My position is Byzantine priority. I believe that the Byz. family of mss. mirrors the originals very closely.

And I entirely agree that many translations are "not always faithful to the original." I once did a thread here comparing a random chapter of the NIV to the Greek, showing the many inaccuracies of that translation.

 

[SavedByGrace]

"...to the exact extent that they mirror the originals."

sorry brother, my mistake!

 

[SavedByGrace]

My position is Byzantine priority

are there any English versions that are based on this text? I would like to compare it with the Hebrew and Greek. and see how it compares, thanks

 

[John of Japan]

"ONLY the originals are inspired" is a repetition from many "sources" means that translators, text books, seminary professors, school teachers, pastors, lay Christians, fill in in the blank, repeat the mantra,
"Only the original documents are the inspired word of God."

OK I do not have the acumen or the mental strength to really discuss, but then I have another question:

By Jesus calling the copies "the word of God" or "scripture" did He mean that the copies are equal to the inspired word of God?

Let me clarify the term "word of God." It occurs 8 times in the Gospels. Of those times, 7 use the Greek word logos, and clearly mean the message in mind rather than individual words, whether that of John, the seed as the word of God, etc. One time the word hrema is used and that is in Luke 4:4, which is what you are referring to. It is a clear argument for (1) verbal plenary inspiration, and (2) that the Bible you can hold in your hand is from God, and it is possible to understand and obey every word.

The Hebrew OT, which was what Jesus was referring to, is very regular, with nowhere near the textual problems of the Greek NT. So to answer your question, yes, the copies are the Word of God. They are "equal to the inspired word of God" to the exact extent that they are identical to the originals. I can hold my Hebrew OT and Greek NT, both edited from the mss, and say, "This is the Word of God."