-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Please Show Scripture That Says...
- Thread starter SGO
- Start date
- Status
The scripturally-based case that the process of inspiration ended with the completion of the New Testament is stronger than the non-scriptural case that tries to suggest that the process of inspiration occurred again after the completion of the NT and without 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).
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).
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).
KJV-only author Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). KJV-only author 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). Dennis Kwok asserted: “The process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God” (VPP, p. 23). 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).
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).
KJV-only author Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). KJV-only author 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). Dennis Kwok asserted: “The process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God” (VPP, p. 23). 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).
While the sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” it does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse (2 Tim. 3:16).
Do some perhaps try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question that somehow the process of translating is found in this verse? Do some try to use a weak argument from silence and try to find something in the verse that is not directly stated? Quen Suan Yew wrote: “Argument from silence is very dangerous and can lead to all kinds of wrong doctrine” (Kwok, VPP, p. 53). Would the Holy Spirit of truth guide believers to advocate personal opinions based on unproven assumptions involving the use of fallacies? Would trying to suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches something it does not state be evidence of sound spiritual discernment?
This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration. It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or for the way or process by which they are translated into other languages including into English.
Do some perhaps try to assume by the fallacy of begging the question that somehow the process of translating is found in this verse? Do some try to use a weak argument from silence and try to find something in the verse that is not directly stated? Quen Suan Yew wrote: “Argument from silence is very dangerous and can lead to all kinds of wrong doctrine” (Kwok, VPP, p. 53). Would the Holy Spirit of truth guide believers to advocate personal opinions based on unproven assumptions involving the use of fallacies? Would trying to suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches something it does not state be evidence of sound spiritual discernment?
This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration. It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or for the way or process by which they are translated into other languages including into English.
Where do you demonstrate that any one needs to prove a negative?
Are you trying to shift the burden of proof since it would be the responsibility of anyone who asserts that a Bible translation made after the completion of the New Testament is inspired to prove their positive assertion to be scriptural and true?
The truth that the Scriptures do not teach that Bible translations after the completion of the New Testament are made by the process of inspiration of God to prophets and apostles is all that believers need to affirm.
John William Burgon also noted: "It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue" (Last Twelve Verses, p. 15; Unholy Hands, Vol. I, p. C-9).
Ralph Thomas maintained: “One is never obliged to prove the negative of an assertion” (Manual of Debate p. 30).
Reformer Francis Turretin observed: “The affirmative is bound to prove, not the negative” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I, p. 38).
John A. Broadus wrote: “He who alleges must prove; no man is under obligation to prove a negative” (Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, p. 165).
Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611 KJV, wrote: “We never learned to prove the negative” (Perpetual Government, p. 251).
Great!
Hey you forgot something.
I am not talking specifically about the King James Version of the bible here.
It's about all translations in any language you want.
Presented in the four posts above are nice long logical arguments accepted and supported by wise men that prove we don't necessarily need to believe in God's promises that are written down in uninspired translations.
Our invisible Friend is just a fairy tale.
We are experiencing a group delusion that has been carried on for hundreds of years if not longer.
Oh, wait. Some say they actually believe in Jesus? Who dat?
They got that by having faith in a translation that is not inspired.
No, only little pieces of translations are inspired.
We get to pick which ones and WE can prove it.
Ah, that's better and very logical.
After all, only the originals are inspired.
Yes and what verses of our uninspired versions say that?
They don't.
We thought it up all by ourselves.
WE can prove it by logic, not just by an uninspired translation.
The originals were so shiny that the glow transferred in some magical way to the copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies
and then have been actually translated and translated and translated and revised and revised and revised in other languages.
But there's got to be at least one problem in that process. Newp.
No, it's by faith in uninspired bibles that God sees in each of us that claims to be Christian.
Wait, there is a God?
And how exactly do you know that?
The promises come through somehow in a special way in the uninspired translations.
There's some kind of life in them.
Oh, really?
They say that of themselves but life does not mean inspired.
And apart from that, this universe and all therein is so wonderfully constructed there has to be a God.
Man's intellect shows it to us, but it's not God fulfilling His promises through the process.
The glow off of Moses' face covering got here too.
Prove it by scripture not by logic.
Wait, it's that vicious circle again.
You must be real smart to believe correctly.
No worries, planet wacko by only a few here on this forum.
Let's put some chemically treated dead plants with some pigments together
and wrap them up in fancy cardboard or dead animal skins and sell them to the gullible public that needs to believe in something any way.
The basic ideas have lasted so long and can be tweaked to show they are still somehow relevant.
So we'll make a lot of money and everybody will be happy.
Hey you forgot something.
I am not talking specifically about the King James Version of the bible here.
It's about all translations in any language you want.
Presented in the four posts above are nice long logical arguments accepted and supported by wise men that prove we don't necessarily need to believe in God's promises that are written down in uninspired translations.
Our invisible Friend is just a fairy tale.
We are experiencing a group delusion that has been carried on for hundreds of years if not longer.
Oh, wait. Some say they actually believe in Jesus? Who dat?
They got that by having faith in a translation that is not inspired.
No, only little pieces of translations are inspired.
We get to pick which ones and WE can prove it.
Ah, that's better and very logical.
After all, only the originals are inspired.
Yes and what verses of our uninspired versions say that?
They don't.
We thought it up all by ourselves.
WE can prove it by logic, not just by an uninspired translation.
The originals were so shiny that the glow transferred in some magical way to the copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies
and then have been actually translated and translated and translated and revised and revised and revised in other languages.
But there's got to be at least one problem in that process. Newp.
No, it's by faith in uninspired bibles that God sees in each of us that claims to be Christian.
Wait, there is a God?
And how exactly do you know that?
The promises come through somehow in a special way in the uninspired translations.
There's some kind of life in them.
Oh, really?
They say that of themselves but life does not mean inspired.
And apart from that, this universe and all therein is so wonderfully constructed there has to be a God.
Man's intellect shows it to us, but it's not God fulfilling His promises through the process.
The glow off of Moses' face covering got here too.
Prove it by scripture not by logic.
Wait, it's that vicious circle again.
You must be real smart to believe correctly.
No worries, planet wacko by only a few here on this forum.
Let's put some chemically treated dead plants with some pigments together
and wrap them up in fancy cardboard or dead animal skins and sell them to the gullible public that needs to believe in something any way.
The basic ideas have lasted so long and can be tweaked to show they are still somehow relevant.
So we'll make a lot of money and everybody will be happy.
Last edited:
My sound, scripturally-based observations justly apply to all Bible translations in any language.
You may want to assume or wish something that the Scriptures do not state nor teach.
Bible translations have proper authority as being the word of God translated into another language. It is dependent, derived, or acquired authority that comes from the greater authority of their underlying sources--the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. When imperfect men (whether printers, editors, or translators) introduce errors into a Bible translation, those errors can be corrected by the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
Scriptural truths teach that words added by men and that errors introduced by men would not be the inspired word of God.
It is based on clear scriptural truths that errors or inaccurate renderings in Bible translations can and should be corrected by the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
You forget something. No one can read or understand Scripture without logic or reason. Man cannot think without use of logic. Words would have no meaning without logic. Proving something by Scripture would involve use of logic.
Logic or reason comes from God. The scriptural truths that God is the God of truth and that God cannot lie indicate an important rule of logic--the law of non-contradiction.
"It is dependent, derived, or acquired authority that comes from the greater authority of their underlying sources--the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. When imperfect men (whether printers, editors, or translators) introduce errors into a Bible translation, those errors can be corrected by the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages."
You are right about one thing, I do wish a lot.
Please show these "original preserved scriptures" and I will admit this is just an exercise in futility.
You say you arrive at them by "scriptural principles" but you do not have the actual original scriptures.
So your wishes appear more "logical" than mine.
So were the KJ translators wrong when they inserted the italicized words in the KJV?
If Bible translations were actually made by the process of direct inspiration of God, there would be no need for use of italics or a different type to indicate words added by translators for which they had no original-language words of Scripture. In the 1611 edition of the KJV, some added words were indicated by use of a different type while later KJV editions used italics to indicate those added words. Later KJV editions put more words in italics to indicate that they were added words since the indicating of the added words was very inconsistently done in the 1611 edition.
When the added words are necessary to present accurately or correctly the meaning of the original-language words in context, the adding of the words would not be wrong.
In any cases where the added words change or diminish what the original-language words in context mean, the adding of the words would be wrong.
Hark
Well-Known Member
How God the Father works behind the scene in drawing men unto the Son has to be considered since He can hide the truth from the prudent & the wise & yet be able to reveal His Son to even babes.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. ~ KJV
Even Jesus explained about how wisdom has to come from the Lord to understand His parables.
Matthew 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. ~ KJV
So anyone out there reading this; they do not have to despair if they do not have the education nor the wisdom of men to understand things as we see educated men today because wisdom comes from the Lord. So while men lose that truth while educating themselves with Biblically scholarly pursuit, wisdom still has to come from the Lord.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. ~ KJV
Hark
Well-Known Member
If we consider that the lost books in the Bible are not in the accepted Bible because they have scripture running against scripture in the accepted Bible, then should we not discern with the Lord what Bible version is keeping the truths in His words that does not run contrary to the truth in other parts of scripture in that Bible version?
Did Jesus forewarned us that we would need His help to prove all things, including Bible versions?
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. ~ KJV
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. KJV
Since not all Bibles are saying the same thing is why with His help, I have come to rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil By his words as kept by those who loved Him to keep His words.
Psalm 119:157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word. ~ KJV
So Who is the scripture is to talk about in coming to for life for? John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. ~ KJV
So when there is a debate between Bible versions about Who the Giver of Life is because of that errant Nicene creed of 381 A.D., as some contend that spirit is capitalized in John 6:63 & 2 Corinthians 3:6 but the KJV ASV & few others kept it small to keep the testimonies regarding the Son as the giver of life, which Bible versions do you think loves the Son to keep His words so believers & sinners go to Him for life & fellowship with the Father & the Son?
So when most Bible versions kept the truth in His words that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself but speaks what He hears, then that means the KJV & few Bible versions has it right when not even His groanings can be uttered in Romans 8:26.
So when the Bibles testify that we are in the process of being saved whereas the KJV & a few testify that we are saved in 1 Corinthians 1:18 in relation to 1 Corinthians 1:21 for those that contend with their wisdom of men per grammar rather than wisdom from the Lord, I find the KJV keeping the truths out of the few that kept the truths out of those proving ground.
Is KJV a perfect Bible? is the KJV only inspired? I believe sinners can be led to salvation in all Bibles, but when it comes to the meat of His words in discerning good & evil by His words, I find I can only rely on the KJV for reproofs whereas other Bibles decline from His testimonies whereby they indirectly support false doctrines by. They may have scripture in that Bible version for reproof, but the damage is done by sowing doubts in His words & believers would tend to play it safe & continue under the false belief they are under. It is because of the many Bible versions is why I believe everybody is having a hard time hearing His words.
Tongue speakers doubt Jesus really meant that in John 16:13 in all Bible versions & so because of the testimony that groans can be heard from the Holy Spirit in most Bible versions, they believe tongues are for private use as id the Spirit is turning God's gift of tongues around from speaking unto the people for Him to start praying back to God in gibberish nonsense. So they do not test the spirits but want to believe that was the Holy Spirit coming over them later in life as a saved believer bringing that gibberish tongue as found in pagan's religions & occults all over the world.
Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? ~ KJV
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it. 13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst. ~ KJV
Something to ask Jesus about at that throne of grace.
You forgot to include Spirit lead research and translating scholars.
Any modern language bible in whatever language has armies of proponents with scholars and mss "evidence".
Some even have publisher cash to back them up.
The KJV scholarly translators had King James and his cash.
And these translators said of themselves that they were NOT inspired, only that they wanted to make a better translation.
But this really is not about the KJV.
It's about all the translations that millions of believers put their faith in.
According to prevailing thought only the originals are inspired and not ANY translation.
The complete veracity of any translation cannot be proven by logic and scholarly principles.
The unreliableness of any translation can be proven logically with mss evidence and scholarly principles.
No hope for a bible that can really, really stand behind every word is pure.
Any modern language bible in whatever language has armies of proponents with scholars and mss "evidence".
Some even have publisher cash to back them up.
The KJV scholarly translators had King James and his cash.
And these translators said of themselves that they were NOT inspired, only that they wanted to make a better translation.
But this really is not about the KJV.
It's about all the translations that millions of believers put their faith in.
According to prevailing thought only the originals are inspired and not ANY translation.
The complete veracity of any translation cannot be proven by logic and scholarly principles.
The unreliableness of any translation can be proven logically with mss evidence and scholarly principles.
No hope for a bible that can really, really stand behind every word is pure.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Was anyone saved by first learning a lot of scripture as an unbeliever and then believing?
(In which case, the perfect inspiration of the scripture as translated might be essential for the word to save).
In my case (caution, small sample size), God first saved me and then I later learned more about Him through reading scripture and being guided in understanding by His Spirit in me.
(In which case, God is more than capable of compensating for and minor imperfections in the translation).
(In which case, the perfect inspiration of the scripture as translated might be essential for the word to save).
In my case (caution, small sample size), God first saved me and then I later learned more about Him through reading scripture and being guided in understanding by His Spirit in me.
(In which case, God is more than capable of compensating for and minor imperfections in the translation).
- Status