Featured Does a Multitude of Modern English Bible Versions Promote a Violation of 1 Cor 1:10

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). Taylor again noted: “Keep in mind that inspiration describes the process by which God recorded His words for man” (p. 76). Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). David O’Steen wrote: “Revelation demands inspiration which is the process by which the Spirit of God gives the words of God in writing (2 Sam. 23:2, Ps. 45:1)” (Study Notes, p. 36). 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). Peter van Kleech Sr. asserted: “The immediate inspiration of Scripture was a once-for-all, unique process applicable only to the original writings of Scripture or the autographa” (Exegetical Grounding, p. 33). 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).

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that inspiration is the term for the process of the copying of the Scriptures, the process of post-NT translating of the Scriptures, or the process of the printing of the Scriptures.

 

Because all passages need to be understood and interpreted according to the harmony of Scripture and in agreement with what other related passages teach. Several KJV-only authors have asserted that 2 Peter 1:21 is the parallel passage to 2 Timothy 3:16 concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures. You seem to seek to dismiss what the parallel passage would teach.

Stephen Westcott’s modern-spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe New Testament has the following rendering of 2 Peter 1:21: “for prophecy was not brought at any time by man’s will, but the holy men of God, inspired with the Holy Ghost, spoke it.“ Miles Coverdale’s rendering of the Latin Vulgate in his 1538 English New Testament at 2 Peter 1:21 is the following: “For the prophecy was never brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the holy Ghost.”

 

Ok, just saying that the “best selling” Bible in 2022 might not necessarily the “most used” Bible among Christians. I know Christians that have kept their same bibles for decades, in some cases generations. I really thought the KJV was most used in the US.

Please speak plainly. What is your solution to the problem you have identified in the OP?

peace to you

 

Jesus spoke Kone Greek almost exclusively.

The Words He received from His Father must also have been Kone Greek.

The OT is Biblical Hebrew almost exclusively.

Both of these languages are now “dead”, they are no longer spoken as they were spoken at that time.Therefore the passages you are quoting concerning not adding or taking away these words are referring to these ancient, and now dead, languages.

What is your solution to the problem you have identified?

peace to you

 

I’m certain every man and woman that has dedicated their lives to understanding God’s words in the original languages and then translating those words into modern languages believe they are God’s words given from heaven.

The problem, as you stated, is having multiple translations in the same language. Is that your point?

Are you saying English speaking people should only have one translation so everyone will be of the same mind?

If yes, are you saying the KJV is the only translation English speaking people should have, for the sake of unity within the church?

peace to you

 

You fail to show that you believe the actual original-language words of Scripture that God directly gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles rather than following a human, non-scriptural philosophy of modern KJV-only advocates.

 

Who is “replacing” the trust in God to preserve His Words? The folks who have dedicated their lives to learning the biblical languages and translating them are far more likely, imo, to have a very deep respect and understanding of God Holy Spirit’s role in preserving God’s Word.

You are misunderstanding the context of 1 Corinthians 1:19, which is a condemnation of those who rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified (both Jewish and Gentile) to on a stumbling block and to the other foolishness.

It is not a rejection of scholarship concerning the biblical languages.

peace to you

 

I do not at all miss that fact.
Do you miss the fact that any translating of original-language words of the OT in the NT was part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets? The translated words were given directly by inspiration of God as part of the original-language of the New Testament. That process of the giving of additional Scripture by inspiration ended with the completion of the New Testament.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

The Church of England makers of the KJV were not prophets and apostles receiving words directly by inspiration of God. The revising of pre-1611 English Bibles and the translating by the makers of the KJV was not by direct inspiration of God. The translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV are like the translation decisions involved in the making of the 1560 Geneva Bible, in the making of the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, or in the making of the 1982 NKJV.

 

You might had missed the fact that the New Testament author's sometimes had different Old Testament readings than what has come down to us in the existing traditional Old Testament. That is two different readings. Hence the need for textual criticism.

 

I answered another email very recently from a missionary to Cameroon, where I taught some young translators principles of Bible translation some years ago. The Africans were pressuring the missionary to help them on their translation into Cameroon Pidgin, and he wanted the notes I had taught them from.

Those Africans also know the importance of the original languages of Scripture, and want to do their best at their sacred task.

 

The actual reading of God's given text is objective.