Only the Originals Are Inspired

[John of Japan]

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

The World English Bible is your best bet: World English Bible. It is based on the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, which is very close to the Byzantine Textform of Robinson and Pierpont, my go-to Greek text. There is a committee working on a translation from the Byz., but they are not very far along yet. (I was asked to join the effort, but then they figured my translation philosophy was not quite theirs--long story. I might have turned them down anyway, since what we need are missionary translations into 3,000 languages, and that is where my heart is.)

 

[SGO]

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?

I thought you meant this statement is true, "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."

If nothing but the originals are inspired then none of the copies could be inspired except for God personally preserving His truth.

So where in the bible does it say ONLY the originals are inspired?

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable..."
Did Paul have the originals?
No, he had copies, which he called scripture.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Did Paul have the originals?
No, he had copies, which he called scripture

and your evidence being...?

 

[SGO]

and your evidence being...?

The New Testament in English. Is that a trick question because I don't get what you are asking me?
2 Timothy 3:16.

Or this, "The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus,
when thou comest,
bring with thee,
and the books,
but especially the parchments."
2 Timothy 4:13

C'mon pound some sense into this concrete head.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

The KJVO claim of derived inspiration goes up in smoke!

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Interesting that the same KJVO that support Kjv being inspired also held that only the Originals were!

 

[SGO]

You guys have yet to point out the scripture to back the assertion that "ONLY the originals are inspired."
It's more fun to bash the KJV when you can't prove your point.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

We do not have perfect copies of the Original texts, but very close indeed, and pretty much all mistakes are known and not doing anything to doctrines!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The KJVO claim of derived inspiration goes up in smoke!

still probably the best Bible translation in any language, which I believe was "guided" by the Lord, though in places not too good with the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Think the Greek Orthodox study bible is!

 

[John of Japan]

So where in the bible does it say ONLY the originals are inspired?

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable..."
Did Paul have the originals?
No, he had copies, which he called scripture.

"Given by inspiration" is one word in Greek, the singular adjective θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), meaning, "breathed out by God," or, "the breath of God." This word is what is called a hapax legomenon, a word used only once in the NT. It is used nowhere in secular Greek, and only used in Christian writings long after Paul, so it is probably a word invented by Paul.

Now think about it. The word for "breathed out" is singular, one time. If you breathe "I love you" into your spouse's ear, how many times is that? If you say it again sometime, is that not a separate sentence? If God breathed out the words of Scripture, it was one time. So Paul was referring to the original mss in this statement.

 

[Yeshua1]

still probably the best Bible translation in any language, which I believe was "guided" by the Lord, though in places not too good with the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek.

other translations are also very good, such as Nkjv, Nas and the Esv.////

 

[Yeshua1]

You guys have yet to point out the scripture to back the assertion that "ONLY the originals are inspired."
It's more fun to bash the KJV when you can't prove your point.

To be inspired of and by the Holy Spirit, one needs to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus, any of those on the 1611 team?

 

[SavedByGrace]

We do not have perfect copies of the Original texts, but very close indeed, and pretty much all mistakes are known and not doing anything to doctrines!

I contest any charge that the Hebrew Bible that was used by Jesus Christ, and the NT writers, were just mere "copies" at the time. I have no doubt the the LXX was NOT used by either the Lord when quoting from the OT, or any of the NT writers.

 

[Yeshua1]

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."

Infallible, but not Inerrant...

 

[SavedByGrace]

other translations are also very good, such as Nkjv, Nas and the Esv.////

maybe, however, all these three fail in their Luke 1:35 translation, which is a crucial verse for the real humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[SavedByGrace]

We do not have perfect copies of the Original texts, but very close indeed, and pretty much all mistakes are known and not doing anything to doctrines!

I have found that far too much credit is given to the manucrtipts, which are far more unreliable than the quotes of the early Christian thrologians/scholars, like Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, etc, etc

 

[Yeshua1]

The World English Bible is your best bet: World English Bible. It is based on the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, which is very close to the Byzantine Textform of Robinson and Pierpont, my go-to Greek text. There is a committee working on a translation from the Byz., but they are not very far along yet. (I was asked to join the effort, but then they figured my translation philosophy was not quite theirs--long story. I might have turned them down anyway, since what we need are missionary translations into 3,000 languages, and that is where my heart is.)

I have yet to see any biblical theology/doctrines that my Nas does not support same as the Kjv does though!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have yet to see any biblical theology/doctrines that my Nas does not support same as the Kjv does though!

1 John 5:7! The Holy Trinity

 

[Yeshua1]

still probably the best Bible translation in any language, which I believe was "guided" by the Lord, though in places not too good with the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek.

The 1611 translators were guided in same fashion as those of the Nas and Nkjv teams were!