Questions for a derived inspiration argument

[Logos1560]

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many accurately translated words in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible have derived inspiration even if some of those words were changed, revised, or omitted in the 1611 KJV?

If some accurately translated words in the 1560 Geneva Bible were changed in the 1611 KJV to less accurately translated words, do those changed words still have derived inspiration?

If some accurately translated words in the 1560 Geneva Bible were omitted in the 1611 KJV, do those accurately translated Geneva Bible words still have derived inspiration even if not found in the KJV?

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many words that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament have derived inspiration before they were put into the 1611 KJV?

When the fact remains that there were multiple varying pre-1611 English Bibles with many accurately translated words and thus derived inspired words, how did readers decide which English Bible was correct according to the derived inspiration argument?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the hundreds and thousands of added words in the KJV for which its makers had no original-language words of Scripture have derived inspiration?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do the around 190 whole English words not found in the original 1611 KJV edition that were added in later KJV editions have derived inspiration?

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the words in the original 1611 edition of the KJV that later editors/printers removed have derived inspiration, meaning that present KJV editions would be missing some inspired words?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the original-language words of Scripture in the KJV's underlying texts for which the 1611 edition and later KJV editions give no English word/rendering lose their inspiration when they were omitted?

 

[Mike B]

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many accurately translated words in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible have derived inspiration even if some of those words were changed, revised, or omitted in the 1611 KJV?

Derived inspiration? How could anybody possibly know the answer to that question?

I believe God inspires what/who He chooses to, and we do know that the originals were
given by God's inspiration. Beyond that, who could truly know if God chose to inspire
any of the translations, and If He did, what could be the proof of that?

That is the question we should be asking.

People who do bible translations should be Christians as well as linguists, and as such they would
be, no doubt, praying and seeking God's will in their translation work.

What standard could be used to determine if God chose to inspire them....or not?

 

[Van]

As a cessionalist, I believe God has provided His word, and it is sufficient for the lost, with the help of born anew and indwelt believers, to find and embrace Christ. Those that claim their interpretation is inspired and therefore must be accepted over the best effort of others, seem like snake-oil salesmen to me.

There is no doubt in my mind that the body of Christ is riddled with factions, driven by differing understandings of God's word, but the way back to unity is through mutual agreement after sharing our study and listening carefully and prayerfully to those who believe differently. The my way or the highway folks seem to have quenched the Spirit of Unity.