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

Your strawman distortion and misrepresentation of what I stated is not true. I accept what God stated, and I do not at all put God in my own little box. What I soundly noted in agreement with several KJV-only authors is that the term inspiration is the term for how the words proceeded directly from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles. 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).

The Scriptures do also teach that certain holy men of God (the prophets and apostles) were directly involved in the process of the giving of all Scriptures by inspiration of God to them.

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that inspiration is the term for how the original-language Scriptures would be later copied or for how post-NT translating of the original-language Scriptures would be done. Men were given instructions and warnings that related to the copying of the Scriptures [not to add any words, not to omit words, and not to change words] because that copying would not be done by a direct miracle of God that prevented imperfect men from doing any of those things.

On the other hand, KJV-only reasoning seems to try to put God in its little box and dictate to God the only way that it says is the way that God's original-language words of Scripture have to be preserved. KJV-only reasoning suggests that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and interpretation/translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611.

Typical KJV-only reasoning conflicts with the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers since it in effect makes the makers of the KJV into an exclusive group of priests who alone are permitted to interpret/translate the original-language Scriptures into English.

 

You did not read carefully. I myself did not claim that men are inspired. I accurately pointed out that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles asserted that certain men such as David are inspired and that the KJV translators suggested that certain men were inspired. To refer to the inspiring of men or to "inspired men" is consistent with early English Bible terminology from the very good Bibles in the line of good Bibles promoted by KJV-only advocates. Do you claim to be superior in your understanding of the Scriptures that the men who translated the Scriptures into English in the 1500's and in 1611?

Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost."
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.”

KJV-only authors have asserted that 2 Peter 1:21 is a parallel verse to 2 Timothy 3:16 on inspiration. Evangelist Harold Boyd, a KJV-only advocate, asserted: “If you want a good definition for inspiration, I believe you will find this in 2 Peter 1:21” (Flaming Torch, August, 1981, p. 3). 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). H. D. Williams wrote: “Other verses refer to inspiration without using the word, inspiration, but teach that men were ‘moved by the Holy Spirit’ to record the Words in the autographs, the original manuscripts” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 194). Concerning 2 Peter 1:21, Tim Fellure asserted: “Though the apostle Peter did not use the word, he did define the process of inspiration” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 23).

In the preface of the 1568 Bishops’ Bible, Matthew Parker maintained that the apostle Paul was “inspired from God above” and that “he did inspire Moses” (Richmond, Fathers, VIII, pp. 146, 151). Lancelot Andrewes, KJV translator, used this early Bible terminology when he preached that Christ "inspireth them [the apostles] with the Holy Ghost" (Ninety-Six Sermons, Library, V, p. 83). Andrewes stated that “the Prophet did nothing but as inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six, III, p. 317). Concerning 2 Peter 1:19, Lancelot Andrewes commented: “The apostle teacheth us that we have the Law from God immediately, and all other scripture by the ministry of men, but yet as they spake nothing but that which the Spirit of God commanded them and inspired into them, and therefore that which they delivered we must hold for a most sure and infallible truth” (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 46). KJV translator John Overall wrote: “For we hold it resolutely, that whatsoever the Apostles did either write, teach, or command, they wrote, taught, and commanded it as they were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost” (Convocation Book, p. 120). Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, wrote: “The prophets were inspired from above” (Perpetual Government, p. 136).

Some KJV defenders and KJV-only advocates have also used this terminology used by the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators. John William Burgon wrote: “My position is this. All Christian men allow that the Apostles and Evangelists of our LORD were inspired” (Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 145). In the introduction to his book Which Bible, David Otis Fuller wrote that “the Spirit of God ‘carried along’ those inspired writers of His words” (p. 5). Edward Hills made mention of "the inspiration which the Apostles received from the Holy Spirit" and called the writers of the Gospels "these inspired evangelists" (Believing Bible Study, p. 31). In the first edition of his book KJV Defended, Edward Hills referred to “the inspired Apostles” (p. 48). David Sorenson also made mention of “the inspired writers” (Touch Not, p. 6) and “the inspired writer“ (God‘s Perfect Book, p. 15).. David Norris also referred to “the inspired writers” (Big Picture, p. 37). Kent Rabe, a KJV-only advocate, noted that "the Holy Spirit inspired Peter" (Double Exposure, p. 5). Wally Beebe wrote: “I think the Holy Spirit breathed inspiration into the writers of our Bible so they would not err” (Church Bus News, April-June, 2002, p. 17). Peter Ruckman wrote: “Luke writes by inspiration,” and he asked: “why did God inspire him [Luke]” (Problem Texts, p. 34).

Over and over, a good number of believers including some KJV-only advocates have used this early English Bible terminology. After giving his definition for inspire in his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster wrote: "In this manner, we supposed the prophets to have been inspired, and the Scriptures to have been composed under divine influence or direction."

Are you questioning the understanding/interpreting/and translating of the Scriptures by William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, and the makers of the KJV?

 

Do you consider the early English Bible translators and the KJV translators to be "false apostles"?

Do you think that the early English Bible translators needed you to help them understand, interpret, and translate the Scriptures correctly since you seem to assert that their understanding of inspiration was so wrong?

 

You jump to a wrong conclusion and bear false witness. You judge unrighteous judgments.

 

I clearly noted that the original-language words of Scripture are God-breathed or that the words proceeded from the mouth of God.

Perhaps you demonstrate that you are in vain seeking a way to accuse, smear, or attack me instead of discussing soundly what I posted.

You seem to continue to ignore and avoid the parallel verse concerning inspiration--2 Peter 1:21. You do not demonstrate that the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators had a wrong or heretical view of inspiration. You avoid what the pre-1611 English Bibles stated. You avoid accusing or condemning the early English Bible translators in the way that you try inconsistently and unjustly to accuse or condemn me.

Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost."
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.”

 

Think! What has that to do with the fact that the actual reading of God's given text is objective?

 

And this has absolutely what to do with our modern translations textual variants?

 

There are sound scriptural reasons for believers to object to the teaching of human, non-scriptural opinions, traditions, and teachings of men as being a doctrine of God when they are not. Some may assume by use of fallacies such as begging the question claims for the KJV that they do not prove to be true and scriptural.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside

the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (Mark 7:7-9)

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matthew 15:6b)

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9)

Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:3b)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men (Col. 2:8a)

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men? (Col. 2:20-22)

Beware of false prophets (Matt. 7:15a)

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth (Titus 1:14)

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge (1 Cor. 14:29)

We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29b)

Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye (Acts 4:19b)

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17b)

And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts (Psalm 119:45)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5:1)

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and interpretation/translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England priests/men in 1611.

 

KJV defender John Cereghin asked: "Isn't it strange that we condemn Catholics for their traditionalism and then proceed to force Baptists into accepting Baptist traditionalism?" (Maranatha Baptist Watchman, Feb., 1996, p. 3). Mickey Carter asserted that “we are not to accept ‘Baptist popes’ either” (Things That Are Different, p. 60). David Cloud wrote: “I do not have to rely on priests or scholars or tradition or extrabiblical sources” (Faith, p. 15). Jack Hyles declared: “The only authority that we as independent Baptists have is the Bible” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 39). G. John Rov asserted: “Revelation has been traded for tradition in the name of human scholarship” (Concealed from Christians, pp. 96-97). J. J. Ray declared: “The true Word of God is thus made of none effect when mixed with tradition (Mark 7:13) (God Wrote, p. 3). After citing Jeremiah 23:16, Doug Stauffer wrote: “Extra-biblical teachings, traditions and doctrines (those established apart from the Bible) frequently contain no more truth than the words from the mouths of these false prophets” (One Book One Authority, p. 59). Concerning the Pharisees, Jeff Farnham declared: “Their addition was that they taught for doctrines the commandments of men and kept their own traditions. Their subtraction was in that they rejected the commandment of God” (God’s Forever Word, p. 17).

Pastor Glenn Conjurske, a strong advocate of the KJV and a critic of modern versions, wrote: “Traditionalism is doctrinally false, misapprehending entirely the ways of the Lord” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, p. 194; Bible Version, p. 13). Glenn Conjurske suggested that “the tap root of all traditionalism” is “pride” and that “traditionalism is the short road to establishing the divinity of our own standards” (p. 195; Bible Versions, p. 14). Glenn Conjurske added: “Traditionalism is not only proud, but usually lazy also. It is a very comfortable position. There is great security in it. It saves us from the necessity of thinking” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske affirmed: “Traditionalism always involves a transfer of authority from the infallible Scriptures to some work of fallible man, on the supposition that the work of man is the work of God, and the only true representation of the Scriptures” (Ibid.).

Glenn Conjurske also observed: “Traditionalists, of course, proceed upon the assumption that there can be no conflict between their standards and the Scriptures, as both are of God, but in this they are as naïve as they are mistaken, and to maintain the mistake they must often close their eyes to the facts. This shutting of the eyes is indeed one of the most prominent characteristics of the modern King-James-Only movement, which constantly denies facts, invents, contorts, and misrepresents them, rewrites history, and even condemns the recognition of facts as unbelief and rationalism” (pp. 195-196; Bible Version, p. 15). Glenn Conjurske maintained that traditionalism “requires no mental exercise, no wrestling with difficulties, no facing of issues, no dealing with stubborn facts, but only a sacrifice of mind to a few pious assumptions, usually false” (Dec., 1997, p. 277; Bible Version, p. 83).

 

The objectively of the word of God in a matter is not affected by the subjectivety of the audience. So the problem as you proposed is not limited to translations but applies to us as believers.

 

Local churches in Greece are instructed from Greek Bibles.

God does not require English-speaking believers to be instructed from only the KJV.
The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

Believers are at liberty in Christ to esteem which Bible translation that they may prefer, but these personal preferences, opinions, and reasonings of men would not be actual Bible doctrine or a doctrine of God.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor. 3:17). The truth shall make believers free (John 8:32). Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made believers free (Gal. 5:1). Mere personal, individual, or subjective preferences should not be permitted to become possibly a stumbling-block for other believers (Rom. 14:13, 1 Cor. 8:9).