Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
Maybe it wouldn't be so abnormal, if he had anything to say that's worth a Nickle in six months.
-
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!
The "scriptures" are said to be "Given by the Inspiration of God", and I, therefore, say "The Bible we hold in our is Inspired."
- Thread starter Alan Dale Gross
- Start date
Alan, is it interesting that you in effect suggest that the scriptural truths that I have presented are not "worth a nickle"?
I am surprised that you would seem to condemn scripturally-based observations and even scriptural truths.
You show that you do not judge righteous judgment.
I am surprised that you would seem to condemn scripturally-based observations and even scriptural truths.
You show that you do not judge righteous judgment.
Last edited:
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
I didn't say you have had:
&
that are not worth a Nickle.
I said that you don't have a Nickle's worth in Six Months.
You show you can't read.
You show that you evidently have not read all my posts the past six months or else you bear false witness by misrepresenting my scripturally-based position. I had posted the following part of my scripturally-based position in response to one of your posts in another thread. All my scripture references are to verses in the KJV.
These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:20-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1). Does following these instructions or this guidance minister doubts concerning God’s words? Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the inspired, pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? Was God ministering doubts and questions about His words or was God advocating the practice of textual criticism when He gave His instructions (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14, Rev. 22:18-19)?
Was God exalting textual criticism by giving his instructions and guidance concerning how to know the words which God has or has not spoken? According to the Scriptures themselves, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. There is also the possibility that words can be diminished or changed by copiers or by translators, introducing possible errors into a copy or into a translation. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken or breathed out words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered words given by inspiration of God. Does obeying God’s instructions by removing added words, restoring omitted words, and correcting diminished or changed words actually destroy the authority of the preserved Scriptures?
Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the absolutely perfect words of God given directly by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4), since the words of the LORD are pure (Ps. 12:6. Ps. 119:140), and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words, perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not the pure words of God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption, of impurity, or of error.
Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47).
The "copy and paste" King is still at it, I see.
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
"And they said unto Him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet", Matthew 2:5.
"Then He took unto Him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be Accomplished", Luke 18:31.
"But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”, John 5:47.
These appeals to the copies and translations of what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the Authority and Standard OF THE COPIES AND TRANSLATIONS, as well as, of the original-language words of Scripture Given to those Prophets Directly by God (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47).
Things written by the prophets would be in the same language as they were written by those prophets so those would not be a reference to post-NT translations. The writings written by Moses himself were not in English.
Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47).
Any translating by the prophets or apostles [or by the Holy Spirit for them] in the New Testament would be part of the process of the giving of additional NT revelation and part of the process of the giving all Scripture by the miracle of inspiration to the NT prophets and apostles, and it is not the same as the post-NT process of translating by the makers of the KJV.
I agree that the Scriptures are inspired (the KJV, ESV, NASB, etc).
What people need to remember is that words are symbols. God's Word is not English words on paper but the truths, ideas, events that those words symbolize.
The problem comes in when "Christians" approach God's Word as a big text book of words. They never actually hear God's word.
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
No, it's not the same process. There is no 'double-inspiration', or translation superiour to what it was translated from.
See below; "...the Authorized Version is an accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is Inspired."
"Recognizing Inspiration as equal to the continuing action of “proceeding out of the mouth of God” that pertains to the product of what was originally dictated by the Holy Ghost to men moved by Him (2 Peter 1:16-21) helps to solve of the debate over the propriety of the use of the word inspired for accurate translations such as the King James Version.
"1.) Accurate copies of the Greek and Hebrew Words are Inspired, since Inspiration, in 2 Timothy 3:16, refers to a product. Paul instructs Timothy that the product of the written Scripture itself is both “Inspired/God-Breathed” and “Profitable.” Neither “God-Breathed” nor “Profitable,” in 2 Timothy 3:16, refer to the process of the giving of the Autographs. Both adjectives describe the noun “Scripture” and attribute a quality to it.[v]
"2.) Anything that we can properly call “God’s Word” is Inspired, because, by definition, if God Breathes out some Words, He has Inspired those Words. “All Scripture is Inspired,” 2 Timothy 3:16. The verse equates what is “Scripture” with what is “Inspired.”
"The two categories are identical—if something is “Scripture,” then it is “Inspired.”[vi] Had the verse referred to the process of revealing Scripture it would have stated, “All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.”
"Since 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the product of that process, Inspired Words, it states, “All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God.” The Breath of God is an inherent quality of all that is Scripture, all that is the Word of God.
"3.) Scripture shows us that accurately translated words are still Scripture.
"1 Timothy 5:18, for example, refers to both the untranslated Gospel of Luke (10:7) and the translated book of Deuteronomy (25:4) as “Scripture.” Indeed, 1 Timothy 5:18 is the only other reference to Scripture (graphe) in Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, so it is natural for one to consider 2 Timothy 3:16 in light of this previous reference.
"The same Paul who tells Timothy that everything that is Scripture is Inspired calls both the untranslated and accurately translated Word of God Scripture.
"4.) Therefore, accurate translations are Scripture.
"5.) Since accurate translations are Scripture, they are Inspired, since all Scripture is Inspired. All Scripture has the Breath of God upon it.
"Therefore, since the Authorized Version is an accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is Inspired."
You do not demonstrate that the Apostle Paul referred to any translation in 2 Timothy 3:15. You assume your opinion or perhaps read it into the verse.
Concerning 2 Timothy 3:15, KJV defender Thomas Strouse observed: “The words ’holy scriptures’ translate hiera grammata, literally ’sacred’ or ’temple writings’” (The Lord God, p. 42). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Thomas Strouse noted: “But the word ’scripture’ translates graphe, which means ’scripture’ and refers to the autographa.” Thomas Strouse added: “Paul obviously used a different word to differentiate between the apographa [copies] and the autographa [original autographs], especially with regard to the scope of inspiration” (Ibid.). Thomas Strouse asserted: “Grapha always refers to the autographical scripture whereas gramma sometimes refers to non-canonical literature. This distinction between these words might help one to recognize that Paul probably referred to the temple writings or scriptures (apographa) in v. 15 and the autographa in v. 16” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 239). H. D. Williams wrote: “Grammata refers to the temple’s copies or apographs of the Old Testament Scriptures” (Miracle, pp. 37-38). Michael Bates also affirmed in 2 Timothy 3:15 that Paul used the Greek “ta hiera grammata which literally means ‘the temple writings’” (Inspiration, p. 144). This Greek word translated “scriptures” at 2 Timothy 3:15 is the same Greek word translated “bill” at Luke 16:6, 7, which is the example that Thomas Strouse cited as where the term referred to non-canonical literature.
This verse (2 Timothy 3:15) does not say that Timothy had a Bible translation. The term for holy Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:15 was the one used for copies in the Jewish temple. This verse (2 Timothy 3:15) does not actually state that Timothy’s Jewish mother, Timothy’s Jewish grandmother, or Timothy had scrolls, a codex, or a physical book with a complete copy of the Old Testament in their possession or in their hands. According to fair, sound hermeneutics, this verse does not state that Timothy had possession of complete copies of the OT Scriptures. The verse did not even directly say that Timothy’s mother, Timothy’s grandmother, or Timothy had read the holy Scriptures. The verb read is not used in 2 Timothy 3:15. This verse stated that Timothy has known the holy scriptures, and he could have known them by more than one way. This verse directly and plainly referred to knowledge of the holy Scriptures, not possession of them. Do some KJV-only authors possibly attempt to place a one-volume codex or printed book outside its proper historical time frame by unintentionally suggesting the existence of one before A. D. 100?
Does 2 Timothy 3:14 indicate or acknowledge that Timothy had received and learned the Scriptures from oral instruction perhaps from his Jewish mother and Jewish grandmother or from hearing the reading of the Scriptures at synagogues?
You again try to claim incorrectly that translating that was part of the process of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets is the same thing as post-NT translating in the KJV.
Any translating by the prophets or apostles [or by the Holy Spirit for them] in the New Testament would be part of the process of the giving of additional NT revelation and part of the process of the giving all Scripture by the miracle of inspiration to the NT prophets and apostles, and it is not the same as the post-NT process of translating by the makers of the KJV.
You do not claim inspiration was supposedly retained in the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') of which the KJV is a revision. The fact of actual errors introduced by men in the 1611 edition of the KJV would conflict with any claim of inspiration for it.
What you are ignoring is the NIV, NKJV, ESV, HCSV are also accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is Inspired.
But this is not secondary Inspiration. These are translations of the inspired Word of God which is communicated through the older text and the TR alike.
KJOV cultists cannot move beyond second divine inspiration no matter how much they deny it. They lack a basic understanding of translations and it boils down to the belief that God gave His Word to the Church of England in English.
The proof is in the KJVO cultists argumemts. They argue English words vs English words, manuscripts against manuscripts. They have no clue about the preserved Word of God because they belong to a cult. They cannot grasp how the KJV and the NIV are both God's Word. They are clueless.
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
"Some have alleged that the grammar of 2 Timothy 3:16 requires a restriction of the Theopneustos of 2 Timothy 3:16 to the Original Manuscripts because of an alleged distinction in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 between the words grammata and graphe.
"One word supposedly speaks of the Autographs, and the other word of copies.
"It is difficult to determine how exactly this argument is supposed to work, but, in any case, it is invalid, since both words are used for copies.
"For example, grammata is used of copies:
"John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings [grammata], how shall ye believe my words?
"They Jews of the first century only had copies of Moses’ Writings, obviously.
"The word is also used of copies, and with semantic overlap with graphe, in early extra-Biblical Patristic works:
"Irenaeus, Against Heresies I:20:1 Besides the above [misrepresentations], they adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures [grammata] of truth.
"Justin, Dialog with Trypho 29: For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the are of man; but David sung them, Isaiah Preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures [grammata], or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the Spirit that is in them.
"Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 70: Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the Writings of the Scriptures [here both words together, ta grammata twn graphon], and who hear the Prophecies, have no understanding.
"Theophilus of Antioch, to Autolycus 3:29 These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the Prophetical writings [grammata] and the Divinity of our Doctrine, that the Doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think; but very ancient and true.
"Graphe is also used of copies of Scripture:
"Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures [graphe], The Stone which the builders rejected, the Same is become the Head of the Corner: this is the Lord’s Doing, and it is Marvellous in our eyes?
"The book that the Lord Jesus’ audience would hold in its hands and read was a graphe.
"John 5:39 Search the scriptures [graphe]; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
"Early patristic writings also use graphe for copies. One easy example is:
"1 Clement 53:1 For you know, and know well, the sacred scriptures [graphe], dear friends, and you have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things, therefore, merely as a reminder.
"Here the copies that Clement’s audience, the Church at Corinth, was examining were the sacred/holy scriptures. The Greek of 1 Clement 53:1 is tas hieras graphas, almost identical to 2 Tim 3:15’s ta hiera grammata.
"If there is some sort of technical distinction between the words so that only either graphe or grammata refers only to the Autographs, the distinction was lost already in what is likely the earliest extant Christian document after the composition of the New Testament, 1 Clement, which was written by the man who appears to have been the Baptist Pastor of the church at Rome around the turn of the 1st century.[xv]
"As noted above, grammata/graphe are also found together as early as Justin Martyr’s Dialog with Trypho 70, c. A. D. 120 or before. Moreover, these early texts use both grammata and graphe for copies of the Scriptures, rather than restricting the words to the Autographs.
"Thus, it is difficult to know which word, gramma or graphe, is the one that is supposedly the technical word for the autographs, and why one must believe the one or the other word constitutes such a technical reference in 2 Timothy 3:15-16. The plain teaching of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that accurate copies of the Bible have the Breath of God upon them in the same way that the Original Manuscripts did."
I agree to an extent. Obviously the words that were actually inspired are the original words that communicated God's Word to the original audience. BUT all legitimate translations are God's Word. This is what some miss when discussing English (and I suppose any language) translations of the Bible.
The KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NIV, are all God's Word in English because they all communicate the Word of God.
When we arrived in Japan in 1981, there was no "KJV Bible" or "KJV equivalent" or a NT you could buy that was from the TR. (There was only one NT from the TR in Japanese history, and it was in very hard-to-read classical Japanese, and wasn't in print anymore.
To those who believe that the KJV is inspired, how should I have chosen a Bible I knew to be similarly inspired in Japanese?
To those who believe that the KJV is inspired, how should I have chosen a Bible I knew to be similarly inspired in Japanese?
Years ago a rabid KJV-Only missionary came to the island of Hokkaido. I knew the missionaries there well--they were from our board--and a year or two later we moved up there ourselves. One day my friend Frank and the KJVO man had a conversation in which the KJVO man stated that the Classical Japanese Bible (Bungoyaku Seisho, 文語訳聖書）was the KJV in Japanese--which idea came from Peter Ruckman, I believe. However, Frank proved to him that he was wrong by showing him the passages and words left out, etc. The Bungoyaku NT was actually translated from one of the first editions of the Nestle's critical Greek text.
Well, the new guy didn't know Japanese yet, but was going to be scheduled to preach, so he called his pastor from Japan (very expensive in the pre-cell days), and got this advice: just have a KJV on the pulpit while you preach, and when you read the Japanese Bible (there are "ruby" reading marks), just have your other hand on the KJV, and the blessings will pass through your body. The pastor was advocating some kind of magic, I suppose.
It's very difficult to get the KJVO theological model (inspired English translation) of inspiration to make sense to a people group like the Japanese.
Well, the new guy didn't know Japanese yet, but was going to be scheduled to preach, so he called his pastor from Japan (very expensive in the pre-cell days), and got this advice: just have a KJV on the pulpit while you preach, and when you read the Japanese Bible (there are "ruby" reading marks), just have your other hand on the KJV, and the blessings will pass through your body. The pastor was advocating some kind of magic, I suppose.
It's very difficult to get the KJVO theological model (inspired English translation) of inspiration to make sense to a people group like the Japanese.
Last edited:
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
But the many different versions of scripture cannot be translated by inspiration of God.
How does God watch over and preserve His scriptures as they are being translated?
We must trust the scholars, but they conflict in their opinions about how to best translate passages.
I use King James, New King James, ESV, NIV, and sometimes the Jewish Study Bible.
My first pastor, when I was a teenager, trusted the KJV. My current pastor uses the ESV.
Arguments about which translation is best go on and on.
How do we decide which versions to use and which to avoid?
Does simply liking a certain version have any value?
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
But the many different versions of scripture cannot be translated by inspiration of God.
How does God watch over and preserve His scriptures as they are being translated?
We must trust the scholars, but they conflict in their opinions about how to best translate passages.
I use King James, New King James, ESV, NIV, and sometimes the Jewish Study Bible.
My first pastor, when I was a teenager, trusted the KJV. My current pastor uses the ESV.
Arguments about which translation is best go on and on.
How do we decide which versions to use and which to avoid?
Does simply liking a certain version have any value?
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
I agree. Translations are not inspired by God. They are translations. Yet the Bibles we have (the KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV) are God's inspired Word.
What I mean is that the English words are not divinely inspired. But words are symbols for ideas and what these words communicate is God's Word.
That may be your understanding and interpretation, but you do not prove that what the verse actually says.
2 Timothy 3:16 does not say that the process of the giving of all Scripture by inspiration of God or by God breathing out the words to the apostles and prophets is the same thing as the different process of copying Scripture.
The term Scripture refers to actual words given by inspiration of God, but this process of the giving by inspiration is not actually stated to be its definition as some KJV-only advocates try to assume and claim. Since the process of writing clearly is not the definition for the term Scripture, could it also be asserted that the process of being given by inspiration is not its definition? The term inspiration or God-breathed for how God gave the words to the prophets and apostles is not actually the definition of Scripture.
Should a Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 be considered the definition for the Greek noun translated “Scripture”? While an adjective can describe a certain noun, that single adjective would not usually be the total definition of that noun. David Croteau observed: “A central maxim to proper interpretation is that description does not equal prescription” (Urban Legends, p. 114). In the Bible, the Scriptures are described by several adjectives that may indicate or describe its attributes or qualities so that no one of them is its definition. Descriptive adjectives are not the same as prescriptive commands or instructions.
While all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, being “profitable” is not the definition for the term Scripture. Is everything that qualifies as “profitable” Scripture? Something can be “profitable” and perhaps even profitable for doctrine/teaching without it being Scripture. This adjective “profitable” is used of Scripture in the same verse (2 Tim. 3:16) to which KJV-only advocates appeal for their claimed definition so why is it not included as part of the definition that they claim is given in this verse? The two Greek adjectives for God-breathed and profitable are grammatically parallel in describing Scripture. Peter Van Kleeck Sr. & Jr. wrote: “”Inspiration’ and ‘profitable are grammatically parallel requiring both adjectives to be semantically equivalent. The function of one of these words in the sentence cannot be altered without effect the other also” (Theological Grounding, p. 115).
While the words of Scripture are pure (Ps. 19:8, Prov. 30:5, Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), being “pure” is not the definition of the term Scripture. Is it interesting that the descriptive adjective pure is not claimed by KJV-only advocates to be the definition of Scripture? Something can be pure without it being Scripture. Is everything that qualifies to be called “pure” Scripture? Something can even go thru a purification process without it being Scripture.