Our Scriptural Confidence

[Logos1560]

You clearly said that omitted words, added words, or changed words do not preserve the original words God gave. That statement asserts that preservation fails when a scribe errs.

I do not at all say that God's preservation failed. I stated the truth while you improperly try to twist it into something that I did not say. You are not accurately presenting my scripturally-based point.

The truth remains that a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God's words when he omitted it. The Scriptures do not say when a scribe or copier adds a word that that added word become an inspired word of God.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I do not at all say that God's preservation failed. I stated the truth while you improperly try to twist it into something that I did not say. You are not accurately presenting my scripturally-based point.

The truth remains that a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God's words when he omitted it. The Scriptures do not say when a scribe or copier adds a word that that added word become an inspired word of God.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that “a scribe or copier did not preserve one of God’s words when he omitted it,” yet you deny that this asserts preservation fails when a scribe errs. Those two statements cannot both be true. If omission means a word was not preserved, then preservation depends on scribal accuracy. That is the logical implication of your own words, not something I invented.

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun such as seed versus seeds and down to the smallest stroke such as jot and tittle. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

 

[Logos1560]

Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun such as seed versus seeds and down to the smallest stroke such as jot and tittle. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

In other words, are you directly claiming that preservation of the Scriptures in the NKJV is God's work, not man's performance?

Are you saying that the Scriptures are preserved in the same sense in present-day Modern English in the NKJV or other modern English Bibles as the Scriptures are preserved in Early Modern English in the KJV or in the other pre-1611 English Bibles?

 

[Logos1560]

Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word down to the number of the noun

The 1611 KJV does not preserve all God's words down to the number of the noun at Deuteronomy 33:17. At Deuteronomy 33:17, the 1611 KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles to a plural.

Do you contradict you yourself in your attempts or efforts to excuse or rationalize the changing of the number [singular/plural] of original-language nouns in the KJV?

There is a plural form for this Hebrew word, which was not used at this verse (Deut. 33:17). The number of the Hebrew word at this verse is the same as its number at Numbers 23:22 [singular].

In his 1848 Bible (KJV) and Commentary, Adam Clarke wrote: "Reem is in the singular number, and because the horns of a unicorn, a one-horned animal, would have appeared absurd, our [KJV] translators, with an unfaithfulness not common to them, put the word in the plural number" (I, p. 834).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The 1611 KJV does not preserve all God's words down to the number of the noun at Deuteronomy 33:17. At Deuteronomy 33:17, the 1611 KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles to a plural.

Do you contradict you yourself in your attempts or efforts to excuse or rationalize the changing of the number [singular/plural] of original-language nouns in the KJV?

There is a plural form for this Hebrew word, which was not used at this verse (Deut. 33:17). The number of the Hebrew word at this verse is the same as its number at Numbers 23:22 [singular].

In his 1848 Bible (KJV) and Commentary, Adam Clarke wrote: "Reem is in the singular number, and because the horns of a unicorn, a one-horned animal, would have appeared absurd, our [KJV] translators, with an unfaithfulness not common to them, put the word in the plural number" (I, p. 834).

You are trying to turn a doctrinal statement about God’s preservation into a claim that all English translations preserve the Scriptures in the same way. Preservation is defined by Scripture as God keeping His words down to the number of the noun and down to the smallest stroke in the inspired languages. Preservation concerns the text God gave, not every later translation of it. A translation may be accurate or inaccurate. Its accuracy does not determine whether God preserved His words. Preservation is God’s work, not man’s performance.

Your question about the NKJV does not touch the doctrine of preservation. The issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices. That is a question of accuracy, not a denial of preservation. Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word. The Masoretes transmitted the text they received. God preserved His words. Later editorial opinions do not change that.

Concerning Deuteronomy 33:17, you are again trying to turn a translation choice into a doctrinal claim about preservation. The Hebrew singular can be used collectively. Hebrew frequently uses a singular noun to denote a class or group. Translating a collective singular with an English plural does not deny the number of the noun. It renders the meaning of the noun in English. Paul himself builds doctrine on the number of a noun in Galatians 3:16, and he does so by interpreting the inspired Hebrew usage, not by imposing English morphology on Hebrew idiom.

The warnings against adding to or taking away from Scripture define the moral responsibility of men. They do not redefine preservation as depending on perfect scribal behavior. You said that a scribe who omits a word “did not preserve one of God’s words.” That is a doctrinal claim about preservation. If omission means a word was not preserved, then preservation fails when a scribe errs. That is the logical implication of your own statement, not something I have invented.

Preservation depends on the faithfulness of God. Translation choices do not overturn it. Human fallibility does not overturn it. Later editorial opinions do not overturn it. God preserves His words.

 

[Logos1560]

The issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices. That is a question of accuracy, not a denial of preservation.

The 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV.

These English Bible translators make the exact same-type translation choices as the makers of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the makers of the KJV. If the translation choices of the KJV translators cannot overturn preservation, by a consistent application of your own stated reasoning the translation choices of post-1611 translators also cannot overturn it. The translation choices of the KJV translators involved interpretation just as the translation choices of later translators involves it. It is your stated reasoning that tries to suggest that all English translations [besides the KJV] have to preserve the Scriptures in the same way as else you will condemn them as reconstructive.

Your two lines is an extra-biblical argument not taught in the Scriptures. You fail to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly to the making of all post-NT Bible translations.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

To suggest that any English Bibles were translated in the exact sense (unequivocally) when we consider the vast differences in the overall translation procedures and philosophies used in the preserved-text process of translation vs the modern eclecticism reconstruction procedures and philosophies makes no more of an intelligent assumption than Peter Ruckman claiming the KJV Translators were Inspired and all that goes along with his ridiculous indefensible assertions.

'all' changed to 'any'.

The History, Conceptualization, Manuscripts, Translators characters, Translation Philosophies, etc., are all very different, with the working assumptions of the critical text, Alexandrian text-type proponents, for one stark example, all being entirely lacking in observable credibility, in the least.

Their wild guesses they based re-writing the Bible on have all been proven false (read: lies).

What I stated is that KJV-only advocates will not accept any other English Bible translation which would include the pre-1611 English Bibles as being the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally) as they inconsistently claim only or solely for the KJV. There is not one other English Bible that they will consider to be the word of God translated into English in the same exact sense (univocally)as they claim only for the KJV.

I don't think you have any idea what you do, or don't, think at any given time about something called a Bible.

What in the Name of God is your problem.

I'd rather you talk to 'KJV-only advocates', since you are dependent on bullying them in their indefensible position. You do that in practically every post you make. Good for you.

 

[Logos1560]

I don't think you have any idea what you do, or don't, think at any given time about something called a Bible.

You do not think correctly. I know exactly what I think about the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles and what I think about post-NT Bible translations. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

I accept and believe the KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible are.

The King James Version is an English Bible translation. The very word translation by definition (when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language) would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent. By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.” Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? Without original-language texts from which to be translated, a Bible translation would not exist. A Bible translation cannot be something other than what it is.

By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original-language texts of Scripture. To state that a Bible translation is not the untranslated original-language Scriptures is to state the truth. By definition, every dependent thing or being such as a translation depends upon something else for its making and existence. Is this property of dependence a primary or essential part of what constitutes a translation?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The 1611 KJV does not preserve all God's words down to the number of the noun at Deuteronomy 33:17. At Deuteronomy 33:17, the 1611 KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles to a plural.

There is a plural form for this Hebrew word, which was not used at this verse (Deut. 33:17). The number of the Hebrew word at this verse is the same as its number at Numbers 23:22 [singular].

In his 1848 Bible (KJV) and Commentary, Adam Clarke wrote: "Reem is in the singular number, and because the horns of a unicorn, a one-horned animal, would have appeared absurd, our [KJV] translators, with an unfaithfulness not common to them, put the word in the plural number" (I, p. 834).

Concerning Deuteronomy 33:17, you are again trying to turn a translation choice into a doctrinal claim about preservation. The Hebrew singular can be used collectively. Hebrew frequently uses a singular noun to denote a class or group. Translating a collective singular with an English plural does not deny the number of the noun. It renders the meaning of the noun in English. Paul himself builds doctrine on the number of a noun in Galatians 3:16, and he does so by interpreting the inspired Hebrew usage, not by imposing English morphology on Hebrew idiom.

You are trying to turn a doctrinal statement about God’s preservation into a claim that all English translations preserve the Scriptures in the same way.

Right.

Concerning Deuteronomy 33:17, you are again trying to turn a translation choice into a doctrinal claim about preservation.

Right.

The Hebrew singular can be used collectively.

Yes, Amen. Superb.

Hebrew frequently uses a singular noun to denote a class or group.

Yes, Amen. Superb.

Translating a collective singular with an English plural does not deny the number of the noun.

Yes, Amen. Superb.

It renders the meaning of the noun in English.

Yes, Amen. Superb.

The issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices. That is a question of accuracy, not a denial of preservation. Scripture does not teach that man preserves God’s Word. Scripture teaches that God preserves His Word.

I wanted to compliment you, Br. Pritchard, on all his above Superb comments and then to seek some clarification on a major point in you discussion with Logos1560.

It looks like these translations below "can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV."

The 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV.

Is this comment below still talking about these translations above that "can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV"? where it says "English translators" or is it including modern Bibles where Br. Pritchard said with "the issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices."

These English Bible translators make the exact same-type translation choices as the makers of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the makers of the KJV.

Then, is this comment below still talking about these translations above that "can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV"? where it says "post-1611", or is trying to include all modern Bibles also? where Br. Pritchard said with "the issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices."

If the translation choices of the KJV translators cannot overturn preservation, by a consistent application of your own stated reasoning the translation choices of post-1611 translators also cannot overturn it.

My questions are concerning the "underlying text" of the list of "English Bibles" mentioned that "can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV" vs "the issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices."

The translation choices of the KJV translators involved interpretation just as the translation choices of later translators involves it.

Concerning the "underlying text" of the list of "English Bibles" mentioned that "can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV" or the ones where "the issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices."

It is your stated reasoning that tries to suggest that all English translations [besides the KJV] have to preserve the Scriptures in the same way as else you will condemn them as reconstructive.

Here "all English translations" are mentioned and want to know if you're talking about those versions "based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV", or also those modern Bibles where "their underlying text" is a enormous issue.

Your two lines is an extra-biblical argument not taught in the Scriptures.

May I ask for clarification as to what the "two lines" are that you are (or 'is'(?) talking about?

You fail to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly to the making of all post-NT Bible translations.

Now we have "all post-NT Bible translations" and it is not clear whether you are now talking about "all post-NT Bible translations" or only those like in the list of English Bibles "based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV".

Was there a switch in your applying the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly to the making of your comments, where one minute you're talking about English Bibles "based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV", then the next minute "all post-NT Bible translations"?

 

[Logos1560]

Now we have "all post-NT Bible translations" and it is not clear whether you are now talking about "all post-NT Bible translations" or only those like in the list of English Bibles "based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV".

Was there a switch in your applying the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly to the making of your comments, where one minute you're talking about English Bibles "based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV", then the next minute "all post-NT Bible translations"?

The all post-NT Bible translations would in context and in meaning refer to ALL post-NT Bible translations in all languages. The Scriptures clearly condemns the use of divers measures [double standards] and advocates the making of righteous judgments. The same exact measures/standards should be applied to all in order to judge righteous judgment. In its context, that statement clearly does not concern which Bible translations I accept or recommend or which that I consider to be the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles.


In its context, it is clear that my other statement does not refer to ALL post-NT Bible translations so that there is no conflict in meaning. I have repeatedly pointed out that I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Greek text.
I accept and believe the KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible are.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

It looks like these translations below "can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV."

Then, is this comment below still talking about these translations above that "can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV"? where it says "post-1611", or is trying to include all modern Bibles also? where Br. Pritchard said with "the issue with modern English versions is their underlying text and their translation choices."

Here "all English translations" are mentioned and want to know if you're talking about those versions "based on the same basic multiple underlying original-language texts as the KJV", or also those modern Bibles where "their underlying text" is a enormous issue.

Alan, thank you for the kind words. Let me address your questions by keeping the categories distinct, because the discussion only stays coherent if we do not mix them.

The key issue is the difference between:

1. English versions that use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek text as the KJV.
2. English versions that use a different underlying text, such as the modern critical text.
3. The broader category of all modern English translations, which includes both groups.

Your questions arise because Logos moves back and forth between these categories without marking the shift. I will mark them explicitly.

When Logos lists versions such as Webster, the 1842 Baptist revision, NKJV, MEV, MKJV, TMB, KJ2000, Jubilee, AV7, KJ3, Sayers, and others, he is referring only to versions that use essentially the same underlying text as the KJV. When he says these translators make the same type of translation choices as the pre 1611 translators and the KJV translators, he is still talking about this group.

When he then says “post 1611 translators,” the category expands. He is no longer restricting himself to TR based versions. He is including all translators after 1611, including those who use the modern critical text. This is a shift.

When he says “all English translations,” the category expands again. It now includes MT based versions, critical text versions, and mixed text versions. This is another shift.

When he says “all post NT translations,” the category expands to its broadest point. It includes every translation made after the apostolic age, regardless of underlying text or translation philosophy. This is a third shift.

Your questions correctly identify these shifts. They are not marked in his argument, which is why the discussion becomes confused.

The issue with modern versions is not merely translation choices. It is the underlying text. TR based versions share the same underlying text as the KJV. Modern critical text versions do not. Therefore they cannot be treated as equivalent categories.

That is the clarification I believe you were seeking.

 

[Logos1560]

The issue with modern versions is not merely translation choices. It is the underlying text. TR based versions share the same underlying text as the KJV. Modern critical text versions do not. Therefore they cannot be treated as equivalent categories.

That is the clarification I believe you were seeking.

My comments clearly indicate the difference in meaning without any shift. All means ALL concerning applying the same exact standard/measures.

In my other distinct and clear statements, I did not say all, and I make it clear to which group of English translations I am referring. Therefore, there should have been no confusion.

I do not treat TR-based translations as equivalent to Critical Text-based translations. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that the Church of England makers of the KJV sometimes borrowed readings and renderings from non-TR sources such as Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

In its context, it is clear that my other statement does not refer to ALL post-NT Bible translations so that there is no conflict in meaning and no confusion. I have repeatedly pointed out that I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Greek text.
I accept and believe the KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible are.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

My comments clearly indicate the difference in meaning without any shift. All means ALL concerning applying the same exact standard/measures.

In my other distinct and clear statements, I did not say all, and I make it clear to which group of English translations I am referring. Therefore, there should have been no confusion.

I do not treat TR-based translations as equivalent to Critical Text-based translations. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that the Church of England makers of the KJV sometimes borrowed readings and renderings from non-TR sources such as Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

In its context, it is clear that my other statement does not refer to ALL post-NT Bible translations so that there is no conflict in meaning and no confusion. I have repeatedly pointed out that I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Greek text.
I accept and believe the KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible are.

My comments were addressed to Alan’s questions, I will not enter another round of discussions with you.

 

[Logos1560]

David Crystal, who is a recognized authority on language and on the English language, wrote: "It is understandable that many people dislike change, but most of the criticism of linguistic change is misconceived. It is widely felt that the contemporary language illustrates the problem at its worst, but this belief is shared by every generation" (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 5).

David Crystal asserted: "Languages do not develop, progress, decay, evolve, or act according to any of the metaphors which imply a specific endpoint and level of excellence. They simply change, as society changes" (Ibid.).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Post Addendum:

The development and decline of a language are not abstract notions; they are observable in its vocabulary, syntax, and semantic discipline. A maturing language gains stability, precision, and expressive range. A declining language loses those qualities. English has gone through both movements. The rise of Early Modern English, from Early English through Middle English, shows consolidation of grammar, sharpening of meaning, and increased capacity for theological and philosophical expression. By contrast, much of contemporary English exhibits semantic flattening, weakened distinctions, and a drift toward ambiguity. These are measurable changes, not subjective impressions. A language’s trajectory can strengthen its ability to convey truth, or it can erode that ability. Change is constant, but the quality of that change is not neutral.

One of the clearest indicators of development or decline is the way a language handles meaning. A maturing language sharpens distinctions, preserves nuance, and maintains stable semantic boundaries. A declining language blurs those boundaries, collapses distinctions, and tolerates ambiguity where precision once existed. English has experienced both movements. The historical record shows periods where vocabulary expanded with disciplined purpose and periods where meanings drifted, weakened, or were lost entirely. Change itself is inevitable, but the direction of that change is not uniform. A language can grow in its ability to convey truth, or it can diminish that ability. The trajectory matters as much as the change.

 

[Logos1560]

The development and decline of a language are not abstract notions; they are observable in its vocabulary, syntax, and semantic discipline. A maturing language gains stability, precision, and expressive range. A declining language loses those qualities. English has gone through both movements. The rise of Early Modern English, from Early English through Middle English, shows consolidation of grammar, sharpening of meaning, and increased capacity for theological and philosophical expression. By contrast, much of contemporary English exhibits semantic flattening, weakened distinctions, and a drift toward ambiguity. These are measurable changes, not subjective impressions. A language’s trajectory can strengthen its ability to convey truth, or it can erode that ability. Change is constant, but the quality of that change is not neutral.

One of the clearest indicators of development or decline is the way a language handles meaning. A maturing language sharpens distinctions, preserves nuance, and maintains stable semantic boundaries. A declining language blurs those boundaries, collapses distinctions, and tolerates ambiguity where precision once existed. English has experienced both movements. The historical record shows periods where vocabulary expanded with disciplined purpose and periods where meanings drifted, weakened, or were lost entirely. Change itself is inevitable, but the direction of that change is not uniform. A language can grow in its ability to convey truth, or it can diminish that ability. The trajectory matters as much as the change.

Which recognized scholars on language and on the English language agree with your opinions?

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language and the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language does not agree with your assertions.

Merely making your broad-sweeping absolute assertions does not mean that they are all accurate and true. Your claimed observations concerning the historical record may be subjective and biased. You may make your assertions in order to try to justify exclusive only claims for one Bible translation in English [the KJV],

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You do not think correctly. I know exactly what I think about the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles and what I think about post-NT Bible translations. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

O.K., I can look for what you said here about "the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles", but I don't think it will be in there;

"All scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", II Timothy 3:16.

Nope, I don't see it, or what you mean by "I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves."

If there are words that we can say came out of the Mouth of God, don't you believe that they can have His Breath Breathing Life into Them, assuring "So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My Mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall Accomplish that which I Please, and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it"? ISAIAH 55:11.

I'm not saying that the Translators were Inspired, I'm saying that I don't believe that there ever is a time when the Holy Sprit of God is separated and found absent from God's Word.

Job 32:8 "But there is a spirit in man: and the Inspiration of the Almighty Giveth them Understanding."

Every time you understand, it is by the inspiration of God that you are Given that understanding.

God's Word is not a dead piece of literature. It can't be.

It's Alive.

I am going to say, whether anybody else on Earth does, that just like where we see The Holy Spirit is Prominently Involved in Jesus' baptism, that Same Holy Spirit is Prominently and Intimately involved with God's Faithful Translations produced by the comparison of the Original Language Manuscripts, etc. Matthew 3:16 records, "As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the Heavens were Opened, and He saw the Spirit of God Descending like a Dove and Resting on Him."

God's Hand is Resting on the Holy Bible.

Just as the Spirit's Descent Signifies Divine Approval and Empowerment for Jesus' Ministry, there at Jesus' baptism, the Spirit's Descent upon the Faithful Translations of God's Word Signifies Divine Approval and Provides Empowerment to it AT ALL TIMES, which Makes God's Word Alive.

"the Words that I Speak to you are Spirit, and they are Life" is found in John 6:63 of the Bible.

The phrase "what the Spirit SAYS to the churches" is a Biblical expression found throughout the Book of Revelation (such as in Revelation 2:29 and Revelation 3:22), calling believers to listen closely to what is Expressly Divine Guidance, BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT IS SPEAKING TO US THROUGH THE BIBLE.

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost Teacheth; comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual. I Corinthians 2:13.

There is a Spiritual Component to the Holy Bible wherein it must be said to be Inspired.

"So that is the Inspiration of Scripture. When we open God’s Word, we can be sure that what we’re reading was Breathed Out by God", because He says that it is "My Word be that goeth forth out of My Mouth".

"Not just in general, but right down to the specifics".

The Inspiration of Scripture

When we open the Bible, we can be sure that what we're reading has been breathed out by God. Today, Barry Cooper delves into the marvelous doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.

learn.ligonier.org

There has to be, and is, a very good reason why God tells us,
"All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and"
ALL OF THAT VERY SAME SCRIPTURE THAT IS INSPIRED:
"is Profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness",
II Timothy 3:16.

That is the clarification I believe you were seeking.

Exactly, sir. Thank you.


I love the principals you are able to lay down in your posts to frame up your arguments.

That's the way it ought to be.

I'm going to start a folder to keep your stuff in, because its awesome.

That would be me benefiting from your ministry right there!

Thank you, again!

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Exactly, sir. Thank you.


I love the principals you are able to lay down in your posts to frame up your arguments.

That's the way it ought to be.

I'm going to start a folder to keep your stuff in, because its awesome.

That would be me benefiting from your ministry right there!

Thank you, again!

Thank you!

 

[Logos1560]

O.K., I can look for what you said here about "the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles", but I don't think it will be in there;

"All scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", II Timothy 3:16.

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 Sam. 7:4, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Jer. 32:26, 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 word of the LORD from the mouth of a true prophet is the truth (1 Kings 17:24).

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, Rom. 6:17). 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. The term “man of God’ in 2 Timothy 3:17 could suggest a prophet when the Old Testament usages of that term are considered.

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 term “man of God” is used in the Old Testament to refer to prophets (Deut. 33:1, 1 Sam. 2:27, 1 Sam. 9:6, 1 Kings 13:1, 1 Kings 20:28, 2 Kings 6:6, 2 Kings 8:2, 2 Kings 8:8, 2 Kings 13:19). 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 directly given to the prophets and apostles is what is identified as being all Scripture “given by inspiration of God.”

 

[Logos1560]

Job 32:8 "But there is a spirit in man: and the Inspiration of the Almighty Giveth them Understanding."

Do some accept and hold their KJV-only teaching first and then later interpret verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8 to conform them to their already accepted view? Do these two verses (2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8) use the same original-language word in the same exact sense concerning the same exact subject that would indicate that they should be considered real parallel passages? Henry A. Virkler noted: “It is important, though, to distinguish between verbal parallels and real parallels. Verbal parallels are those that use similar words but are discussing different ideas (the similarity is more verbal than real)” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 38). Henry Virkler observed: “Real parallels are those that speak of the same idea or same event” (Ibid.). Perhaps describing a similar matter while using a different term, John Beekman and John Callow wrote: “Pseudo concordance is the reoccurrence of the same word in a text but with different senses. Several occurrences of the same word in its different senses gives the appearance of real concordance within a document while in fact there is only pseudo concordance” (Translating, p. 152). John Beekman and John Callow added: “True concordance within a document occurs when the word is used several times representing only one of its senses” (p. 153). John Beekman and John Callow noted: “Real concordance within the text of a document is the deliberate reoccurrence of the same word with the same sense” (p. 154).

James Sire asserted: “When two or more unrelated texts are treated as if they belonged together, we have the fallacy of collapsing contexts” (Scripture Twisting, p. 58). James Sire defined and explained the reading error collapsing contexts as follows: “two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary on the other(s)” (p. 156). James Sire noted: “If two or more texts talk about the same subject in a similar way, then when we study them together we are not collapsing the contexts” (p. 62). Does the use of the same English word “inspiration” to translate two different words in two different verses in different contexts prove that these two verses are real parallels both about the same subject or idea--the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Is there real or true concordance between the use of inspiration at Job 32:8 and its use at 2 Timothy 3:16?

Is it clearly demonstrated that the assertion (Job 32:8) made by Elihu would be the first mention of the same subject of the giving of the Scriptures as the verse in 2 Timothy 3:16 is? David Sorenson asserted: “The only place in the Bible where the word inspiration appears in the context of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 43). In a footnote, David Sorenson noted: “The word inspiration also appears in Job 32:8, but the context there clearly is not of Scripture, but of a man’s spirit being inspired or enlightened by God” (Ibid.). D. A. Waite acknowledged that the word ‘inspiration’ “is used once in the Old Testament (Job 32:8) in a different sense” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 45). Phil Stringer claimed: “The word inspiration did not exist before God invented it for the New Testament” (Unbroken Bible, p. 60). Bruce Lackey wrote: “We will be safe in ignoring Job 32:8 in this discussion [about inspiration], because it simply records the statement of one of Job’s critics, Elihu” (Why I Believe, p. 13). Bruce Lackey added: “Even if we were to take Elihu’s statement as being truth, it would have nothing to do with the inspiration of scripture” (Ibid.).

Does Elihu actually define the meaning of inspiration at 2 Timothy 3:16? Would a possibly more obscure or less clear use of an English word be properly considered the key to understanding a clearer use of that same word? Has it been soundly demonstrated that the Hebrew noun used in Job 32:8 has the exact, same meaning as the Greek adjective used in 2 Timothy 3:16? The Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 is actually translated in the KJV by five words [“given by inspiration of God”], not by one word [inspiration]. How would this adjectival participial phrase [“given by inspiration of God”] be identical to a noun? Do these KJV-only authors avoid sound consideration of how the same Hebrew word translated “inspiration” at Job 32:8 is translated in over twenty other verses in the KJV’s Old Testament? Could any of the other verses where the same Hebrew word is used contribute to understanding its use at Job 32:8? Does Job 33:4 where Elihu used the same Hebrew word again and where it is translated “breath” support the new KJV-only interpretation of Job 32:8? Would presenting one result of “the inspiration of the Almighty” [“giveth them understanding”] actually provide Elihu’s clear and complete definition of it? Even if it supposedly was Elihu’s definition, does that prove it to be God’s definition? Are all the words stated by Job’s three friends and Elihu identified as being revelation directly from God or are all their words accurately recorded by inspiration of God as they had stated them regardless of whether they were right or wrong in some of them? Do the Scripture anywhere identify Elihu as being a true prophet of God who was given direct revelation from God?