The Origin of Originalism

[SGO]

Hey, I'm not the only stubborn person on this forum!

There are hundreds!

One of the forum members told me to do my own research.

I have done just a little, and you get to read the article I found.

Sorry, although I was a particular version hater, I know now who was the founder of this doctrine.

Simon, Richard (1638–1712) | Encyclopedia.com

SIMON, RICHARD
(1638–1712)
The French biblical scholar Richard Simon was born in Dieppe, France, and studied with the Oratorians and the Jesuits and at the Sorbonne, specializing in Hebrew and Near Eastern studies. Before being ordained a priest in 1670, he taught philosophy at an Oratorian college. He soon became one of the foremost experts in Hebrew, Judaism, and Eastern Church history. Influenced by Benedict (Baruch) de Spinoza's critique of the Bible and by the theory of his friend and fellow Oratorian, Isaac La Peyrère, that there were men before Adam, Simon began developing his views about the Bible and church doctrine. His first published work, a defense of the Jews of Metz (1670), attacked Christian anti-Semitism. It was followed by a study of the Eastern Church, another of Jewish ceremonies and customs, and an attack on the monks of Fécamp. His most important and revolutionary work, Histoire critique du vieux testament, was printed in 1678. Jacques Bénigne Bossuet caused it to be banned immediately, and almost all copies were destroyed. A few reached England, and the work was published in French with an English translation by Henry Dickinson in 1682. The scandal forced Simon to leave the Oratory and become a simple priest. Thereafter, he argued with various Protestant and Catholic thinkers and wrote many works on the history of religion and on the Bible, which culminated in his translation of the New Testament (1702). Bossuet caused this work to be banned also.

Simon's revolutionary contention was that no original text of the Bible exists, that the texts one possesses have developed and have been altered through the ages, and that it is therefore necessary to apply the method of critical evaluation to biblical materials to establish the most accurate human form of the revelation. This method involves philology, textual study, historical researches, and comparative studies. Protestants saw that Simon's claim that there is no perfect copy of scripture fundamentally challenged their position that truth is found only by examining the Bible. Catholics feared that he was undermining all bases of Judeo-Christianity by raising problems about all its documents and traditions. Simon contended that he was merely trying to clarify religious knowledge by showing its foundations and development and the need for a tradition to interpret and understand it. Whether intentional or not, Simon's method launched the whole enterprise of biblical higher criticism, which was often directed toward undermining confidence in the uniqueness and ultimate truth of the Judeo-Christian revelation.

Debate or agree with the above.
I will not debate because I am an academic "know-nothin'."

 

[Dave G]

Simon's revolutionary contention was that no original text of the Bible exists, that the texts one possesses have developed and have been altered through the ages, and that it is therefore necessary to apply the method of critical evaluation to biblical materials to establish the most accurate human form of the revelation. This method involves philology, textual study, historical researches, and comparative studies. Protestants saw that Simon's claim that there is no perfect copy of scripture fundamentally challenged their position that truth is found only by examining the Bible. Catholics feared that he was undermining all bases of Judeo-Christianity by raising problems about all its documents and traditions. Simon contended that he was merely trying to clarify religious knowledge by showing its foundations and development and the need for a tradition to interpret and understand it. Whether intentional or not, Simon's method launched the whole enterprise of biblical higher criticism, which was often directed toward undermining confidence in the uniqueness and ultimate truth of the Judeo-Christian revelation.

I find it very interesting, that this way of thinking has now permeated the visible churches and various online Christian forums today.

I will not debate because I am an academic "know-nothin'."

I'll not debate, either, because I think that the article says enough.
I don't have to be an academic ( although I've done a fair bit of research into the subject ) to know what's going on...

What started out "small" 350 years ago, has gained quite a lot of momentum in these last days.

 

[SGO]

Ooooola-la
Seuls les originaux sont inspirés!
Inspirés!
Inspirés!
Seuls les originaux sont inspirés!
C'est pourquoi nous n'avons pas de bible parfaite!

 

[SGO]

I am really surprised that no one from the "Only the Originals Are Inspired" group has yet to vociferously attack the article above's premise about the origins of said doctrine.
It's from a Catholic priest. Is he like Martin Luther, then?
And why has there not been anyone to recently document it's true origins if the article is a lie?
If the article is true then you all may be in error.
This doctrine is established and too entrenched to give up.
It certainly cannot be proved by scripture quotes.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't see from this article where Simon actually invented the idea of "only the originals are inspired." The article mentions higher criticism, but textual criticism is lower criticism. Higher criticism certainly induces doubt in the Word of God, but lower criticism strengthens my faith when I see how God has preserved His Word.

For a more accurate view of 17th century bibliology, I recommend Francis Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture. At that time, what was going on was that the Catholics insisted that the Vulgate was inspired (similar to the modern KJV Only movement.) That is what Turretin opposed, and it is a quite different issue from textual criticism.

 

[John of Japan]

SIMON, RICHARD
(1638–1712)

Simon's revolutionary contention was that no original text of the Bible exists, that the texts one possesses have developed and have been altered through the ages, and that it is therefore necessary to apply the method of critical evaluation to biblical materials to establish the most accurate human form of the revelation. This method involves philology, textual study, historical researches, and comparative studies. Protestants saw that Simon's claim that there is no perfect copy of scripture fundamentally challenged their position that truth is found only by examining the Bible. Catholics feared that he was undermining all bases of Judeo-Christianity by raising problems about all its documents and traditions. Simon contended that he was merely trying to clarify religious knowledge by showing its foundations and development and the need for a tradition to interpret and understand it. Whether intentional or not, Simon's method launched the whole enterprise of biblical higher criticism, which was often directed toward undermining confidence in the uniqueness and ultimate truth of the Judeo-Christian revelation.

Debate or agree with the above.
I will not debate because I am an academic "know-nothin'."

Rather than saying that only the originals were inspired, Simon was not touting any kind of inspiration. What he was doing is now called source criticism, and is a branch of higher criticism, which this article intimates he originated. Not true, really. Protestant sources name Jean Astruc (1684-1766) as the originator.

Here is an example of source criticism. There used to be a theory that four different editors wrote the 5 books of Moses, with the initials JEDP. Thus, Moses did not write them, though he may have provided some material. these letters stand for Jawist/Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly. So supposedly these four editors put the Pentateuch together long after Moses died. Thus, it denies Mosaic authorship, verbal inspiration, and many other things. Far from being the first to believe only the original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired, Simon denied their inspiration.

 

[George Antonios]

The first proponent of "only the originals are inspired" was the serpent:



Notice that Satan doesn’t plant doubt in the “inspired original” delivered to Adam back in Genesis 2:17; he plants doubt in Eve’s mind who only has a “translated copy” from her husband. This is exactly what Satan does today with the church prefigured by Eve in such a context (2Co.11:1-3).

Satan is not against the “original autographs” for the simple reason that they don’t exist. Only Christian “scholars” waste their time defending non-existent original autographs. In the holy scriptures, Satan always attacks passed-down-often-translated copies for the simple reason that that’s what the saints have in their hands and use! You want to plant doubt in the soldier’s mind as to the weapon he’s got in his hands, not its original out-of-production edition. For some fascinating reason, most Christian scholars are blind that to that simple truth.

 

[37818]

Notice that Satan doesn’t plant doubt in the “inspired original” delivered to Adam back in Genesis 2:17; he plants doubt in Eve’s mind who only has a “translated copy” from her husband.

That is an interpertation. Had Adam lied to Eve or did Eve lie to the Serpent when she said, ". . . God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. . . ."?

I have no reason to doubt God had also told them those very words.

 

[George Antonios]

That is an interpertation.

Classic.

 

[SGO]

Here is another about Simon says!


http://gracelifebiblechurch.com/wp-...-Power-of-the-Paper-Pope-of-Protestantism.pdf

The notion that the “originals” only were inspired and inerrant originated within the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Philip Schaff, in his 1893 publication A General Introduction to the Study of Theology: Exegetical, Historical, Systematic and Practical, states the following in a footnote on page 393: o “The distinction between “inerrant autographs " and errant copies seems to have been first made by Richard Simon (1638-1712), the father of biblical isagogic, to prove the necessity of textual criticism and to silence the attacks of Protestant and Roman Catholic champions for the inerrancy of the existing text of the Bible.” (Schaff, 393) • Richard Simon was a Roman Catholic monk/priest who sought to counter sola scriptura by arguing that only the lost originals were inspired and therefore Catholic tradition was necessary to interpret scripture. This argument the missing “first originals” was first adanced by Simon in his 1682 work A Critical History of the Old Testament:

 

[John of Japan]

Here is another about Simon says!


http://gracelifebiblechurch.com/wp-...-Power-of-the-Paper-Pope-of-Protestantism.pdf

The notion that the “originals” only were inspired and inerrant originated within the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Philip Schaff, in his 1893 publication A General Introduction to the Study of Theology: Exegetical, Historical, Systematic and Practical, states the following in a footnote on page 393: o “The distinction between “inerrant autographs " and errant copies seems to have been first made by Richard Simon (1638-1712), the father of biblical isagogic, to prove the necessity of textual criticism and to silence the attacks of Protestant and Roman Catholic champions for the inerrancy of the existing text of the Bible.” (Schaff, 393) • Richard Simon was a Roman Catholic monk/priest who sought to counter sola scriptura by arguing that only the lost originals were inspired and therefore Catholic tradition was necessary to interpret scripture. This argument the missing “first originals” was first adanced by Simon in his 1682 work A Critical History of the Old Testament:

1. This is a fourth hand quote, and thus not trustworthy: Simon to Schaff to this pastor to you. Where did he get this quote? I found a PDF of "Part 1" of this book, but it only goes to p. 233. I assume that p. 393 is either in Part 2 or in some kind of reprint version. Which? Unless I can check the source, I can't tell if this pastor is correctly quoting Schaff in context.
2. Note that the quote from Schaff does not prove anything. He only tells us what he thinks Simon believes, and in a footnote at that. He does not give any quotes from Simon to prove what he says.
3. Note one more time that Simon was a Catholic. You've shown no evidence that he influenced Francis Turretin or any other Protestant.
4. One more time (since you conveniently ignored the first time): Simon is said to have invented higher criticism, according to your post. Higher criticism does not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Simon did not believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, according to what you posted, so he did not believe in an inspired Scripture. Period. End of story.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, so I tracked down this footnote in Vol. 2 of Schaff, which I did find easily on the Internet in a PDF form, and there is an entire paragraph in his footnote which is left out of the above quote, and which says (quoting Hodge, or Warfield, don't know which) something similar to what I have said to be my position, that any copy of Scripture is inspired to the exact extent that it represents the original. Schaff wrote in the first paragraph of the footnote on p. 393 of Vol. 2:

"Drs. A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, the successors of Charles Hodge in the theological chair at Princeton, confine inerrancy to these non-existing original autographs. See 'Princeton Review' for 1881, p. 238. 'The historical faith of the Church has always [?] been that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any error, when the ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained, and interpreted in a natural and intended sense.' Comp. Dr. Warfield's article on inspiration in 'The Presbyterian and Reformed Review" for April, 1893, pp. 177-221."

Theological Propædeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology Exegetical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical Including Encyclopaedia, Methodology, and Bibliography: A Manual For Students, Vol. 2 (1893)

 

[SGO]

So Warfield believed it too then?

So the story does continue.

Here is a link which proves, at least, that Richard Simon say's work made it to England and was translated into English.

Simon, Richard (1638-1712) , A critical history of the Old Testament (1682) : Simon, Richard : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Go ahead and say, "SGO, you are no scholar!: only a pimple brain slave repeating arguments from your masters."

I agree, at least to the first part.

I will continue to search for more documentation that the doctrine of "only the originals are inspired" is an unscriptural fabrication. That is, unless you can bring some verses of the bible that prove your doctrine.

Speaking of verses, look at these three:

And that from a child
thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:15-17

So Paul is writing to Timothy and tells him that from when he was a little kid
he has known THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

Did you know that Timothy had the original inspired words right out of the Old Testament writer's hands?

Or that he had the blocks of stone that God wrote and gave to Moses?

No, Timothy had the first copies, right?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God............. (lots of periods)

 

[John of Japan]

I'm tire of being misrepresented, so I'm leaving this thread. Have a good one.

 

[Logos1560]

I will continue to search for more documentation that the doctrine of "only the originals are inspired" is an unscriptural fabrication. That is, unless you can bring some verses of the bible that prove your doctrine.

You do not practice what you preach. You present no verses of the Bible that prove your modern, fabricated, human KJV-only teaching to be true and scriptural.

Perhaps your own subjective KJV-only bias has blinded you to what the Scriptures state and teach.

 

[Logos1560]

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).

Since the entire Old Testament was designated by God with names such as "Moses and the prophets," "the law and the prophets," “all the prophets and the law,“ and “the scriptures of the prophets,“ this could be understood to indicate that all the O. T. writers should be regarded as prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 26:56; Luke 16:16; John 6:45, Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21, 16:26). The writer of Hebrews could be understood to describe the entire Old Testament as what God spoke by the prophets (Heb. 1:1). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it would suggest that the writers of the individual psalms could have been considered prophets. In addition, individual writers of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30). The writers who received the revelation concerning Christ that would be recorded in the New Testament also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:3-5, 2:20). The N. T. prophets given to the church may refer especially to those prophets that were given revelation that would be written as part of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, Eph. 3:3-5, Eph. 2:20). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter maintained that the commandment of the apostles is connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

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?

 

[SGO]

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).

Since the entire Old Testament was designated by God with names such as "Moses and the prophets," "the law and the prophets," “all the prophets and the law,“ and “the scriptures of the prophets,“ this could be understood to indicate that all the O. T. writers should be regarded as prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 26:56; Luke 16:16; John 6:45, Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21, 16:26). The writer of Hebrews could be understood to describe the entire Old Testament as what God spoke by the prophets (Heb. 1:1). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it would suggest that the writers of the individual psalms could have been considered prophets. In addition, individual writers of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30). The writers who received the revelation concerning Christ that would be recorded in the New Testament also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:3-5, 2:20). The N. T. prophets given to the church may refer especially to those prophets that were given revelation that would be written as part of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, Eph. 3:3-5, Eph. 2:20). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter maintained that the commandment of the apostles is connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

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?

To the question at the end, that is, if you are asking me, I would say yes with the completion of the canon. Nothing written after the book of Revelation is scripture.

You provided a lot of references ( and thank you for taking the time) to show that process but not one from the bible to show that only the originals are inspired. The Old Testament copies they used in making the quotes in the New Testament were also inspired, as shown in the 2 Timothy 3:15-17 passage.

You quote pro and anti KJV inspiration people but do not provide proof of only the originals are inspired from the bible.

My point is here is not to show that the KJV is inspired but to show that the assertion that "only the originals are inspired" cannot be proven from the bible. That assertion came from a counter reformation Catholic priest, which undermines trust in any translation.

 

[SGO]

Another quote about Richard Simon taken from http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/print/opr/t94/e454

What we can now say with some confidence is that we have the NT text as it was read in the main centres of Christian learning about 200 CE.

Historical criticism, sometimes called Higher Criticism, deals with questions of authorship and date, editorial arrangements of sources, historicity, literary categories (genres), and doctrinal tendencies. Historical criticism acquired a bad name amongst orthodox churchmen because its pioneers were unbelievers, like Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679 CE) in the Leviathan; but early work was also done by Roman Catholics: Jean Astruc, a French professor of medicine (1684–1766 CE), noted that Genesis was a compilation of several earlier documents, following a book (Eng. edn., 1682) of OT history by the Oratorian priest Richard Simon (1638–1712 CE) which pioneered Pentateuchal criticism and was burnt by Louis XIV. These works were translated into German, which in due course led to the establishment of the view that much of the Pentateuch was written after the time of the great prophets. The classical 19th‐cent. view of the source criticism of the Pentateuch was the work of Karl Graf and Julius Wellhausen. The traditional view that these books were written by Moses was shown to be untenable. Archaeological discoveries also suggested that the religion of the Hebrews had marked similarities to that of other peoples. At the same time scientists' work on the origin of species showed that the accounts of creation in Genesis did not correspond to the fact of biological evolution.

 

[Logos1560]

The Old Testament copies they used in making the quotes in the New Testament were also inspired, as shown in the 2 Timothy 3:15-17 passage.
.

You are trying to read your human KJV-only opinions into 2 Timothy 3:15-17 passage. It has not been soundly demonstrated at all that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 supports human KJV-only teaching.

Since the words of the New Testament proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the apostles and NT prophets, the supernatural process of inspiration of the NT is involved with the quotations from the Hebrew OT and with the quotations from pagan poets. The process of the giving of the NT by inspiration to the apostles and NT prophets covers all the words of the NT including any quotations.

 

[Logos1560]

It is the Scriptures that teach that only the words that proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles were given by the process of inspiration.

You do not demonstrate from the Scriptures that the process of copying and that the process of translating is by this process of inspiration.

God gave clear instructions and warnings that relate to copying, which would not have been necessary if the process of copying was a supernatural process controlled directly and solely by God. If God had chosen to make it impossible for any man to add to the word of God, to omit any words of God, or to change any words of God in copying, God would not have needed to make any commands about it or give any instructions or warning concerning it, and all copies of the original-language Scriptures would have all the exact same words.

So-called textual criticism could be considered an attempt to follow God's instructions by removing any words added by men in copying, to restore any words omitted by men in copying, and to correct any changes or alterations introduced by men that would diminish the words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.