We have God's Word "in writing".

From: How We Got Our Bible

THE USE OF THE PERFECT TENSE IN GREEK "IT IS WRITTEN."

"NOTE: Wherever the expression, "IT IS WRITTEN" occurs in the New Testament, it represents the Greek PERFECT TENSE for the word, GRAPHO ("to write").

"The form is GEGRAPTAI
(or the PERFECT PARTICIPLE, GEGRAMMENOS)

"...which, in the PERFECT TENSE means,

"It has been WRITTEN in the past,

"and the RESULTS of that writing REMAIN right down to the present

"so that it STILL STANDS WRITTEN JUST AS IT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE!"

To this I add the following for more clarity:

"It has been WRITTEN in the past",

directly from God in the Original Autographs

"and the RESULTS of that writing REMAIN right down to the present

and have be preserved in writing

"so that it STILL STANDS WRITTEN JUST AS IT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE!"

I am not saying that translations we have are exactly as written, in the Original Autographs, but that what we have in writing are as good as the Original Autographs.

In other words, what we have in writing is as Good as God's Word, the way God has expressed it to us and preserved it for us.

We have a derived PLENARY, VERBAL TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, spoken of in any number of our Confessions of Faith and Articles of Faith;

Provided:

The PROPER ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS and
THE PROPER NEW TESTAMENT TEXT that are The TRADITIONAL, RECEIVED GREEK TEXT, EXCLUSIVELY, are used,

with PROPERLY QUALIFIED AND MOTIVATED TRANSLATORS using PROPER TECHNIQUES OF TRANSLATION ARE USED BOTH FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND THE NEW TESTAMENT, they will be able to render a PLENARY, VERBAL TRANSLATION.

And, according to God, they have.

We have His Word in writing.

Judging from the standard of Jesus, we can be assured, by using the process above that God's Word, in THE RESULTING TEXT HAS BEEN ACCURATELY TRANSMITTED and is an

ABSOLUTELY TRUSTWORTHY REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT WRITTEN BY MOSES AND JESUS AND JOHN and all THE OTHER BIBLE WRITERS."

From: How We Got Our Bible

'During His earthly life the Lord Jesus Christ APPEALED UNRESERVEDLY TO THE VERY WORDS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT ("And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4:21),
THUS INDICATING HIS CONFIDENCE THAT THIS TEXT HAD BEEN ACCURATELY TRANSMITTED.

"Not only so, but He also expressed this conviction IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE MANNER.

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18)

"Here our Lord assures us that the OLD TESTAMENT TEXT IN COMMON USE AMONG THE JEWS DURING HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY WAS AN ABSOLUTELY TRUSTWORTHY REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT WRITTEN BY MOSES AND THE OTHER . . . WRITERS."

[Cf. THE CASE FOR THE KING JAMES VERSION by Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., BFT #83, pp. 13-14].


"For the Greek grammatical rules on this use of the PERFECT TENSE, see A MANUAL GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, by Dana and Mantey, pp. 200-205."

Excerpt here, pg.200;
A manual grammar of the Greek New Testament : Dana, H. E. (Harvey Eugene), 1888- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"The Perfect Tense"

182. "The perfect is the tense of complete action.

"Its basal significance is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination and the existence of its finished results.

"That is, it views action as a finished product.

"Gildersleeve significantly remarks that it “looks at both ends of the action” (op. cit., p. 99).

"It implies a process, but views that process as having reached its consummation and existing in a finished state.

"The point of completion is always antecedent to the time implied or stated in connection with the use of the perfect..."

That is where we 'make the jump' from, "it is written", to "it is in writing".

That is not much of 'a jump', but it may seem to speak to us that way, in so many words, when we consider holding a Bible, of a faithful translation, in our hand.

We have God's Word in writing.

From: How We Got Our Bible

"Note the following references:

(with my comments in blue)

(1) : "for thus IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai) by the prophet . . ."

We have the prophets in writing.

(2) : "IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai) Man shall not live by . . ."

We have it in writing that Man shall not live by . . ."

(3) : "for IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai) He shall give His angels . . ." (Satan here agrees with BIBLE PRESERVATION!)

Satan says, we have it in writing...

(4) : "IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai), Thou shalt not tempt . . ."

We have it in writing...

(5) : "for IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai) Thou shalt worship the . . . "

We have it in writing...

(6) : "For this is He of whom IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai) . . . "

...this is He of whom we have it in writing...

(7) : "IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai) My house shall be called . . ."

We have it in writing...

(8) : "Son of man goeth as IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai) of Him . . ."

We have it in writing, the "Son of man goeth.."

(9) : "IT IS WRITTEN (gegraptai) I will smite the shepherd . . ."

We have it in writing "I will smite the shepherd . . ."

etc., etc., etc.

Let these verses be a blessing to you.

We have it in writing.

"It is written."

"And likewise for these references:

"(10) MARK 1:2; (11) Mk. 7:6; (12) Mk. 9:12; (13) Mk. 9:13; (14) Mk. 11:17; (15) Mk. 14:21; (16) Mk. 14:27; (17) LUKE 2:23; (18) Lk. 3:4; (19) Lk. 4:4; (20) Lk. 4:8; (21) Lk. 4:10; (22) Lk. 4:17 (En gegrammenon); (23) Lk. 7:27; (24) Lk. 10:26; (25) Lk. 18:31 (gegrammena); (26) Lk. 19:46; (27) Lk. 20:17 (gegrammenon); (28) Lk. 21:22 (gegrammena); (29) Lk. 22:37 (gegrammenon); (30) Lk. 23:38 (gegrammenE); (31) Lk. 24:44 (gegrammena, etc.); (32) Lk. 24:46; (33) JOHN 2:17; (34) Jn. 6:31; (35) Jn. 6:45; (36) Jn. 8:17; (37) Jn. 10:34; (38) Jn. 12:14; (39) Jn. 12:16;(40) Jn. 15:25; (41) Jn. 19:20; (42) Jn. 19:22; (43) Jn. 20:30; (44) Jn. 20:31; (45) ACTS 1:20; (46) Acts 7:42 (47) Acts 13:29; (48) Acts 13:33; (49) Acts 15:15; (50) Acts 23:5; (51) Acts 24:14; (52) ROMANS 1:17; (53) Rom. 2:24; (54) Rom. 3:4; (55) Rom. 3:10; (56) Rom. 4:17; (57) Rom. 4:23; (58) Rom. 8:36; (59) Rom. 9:13; (60) Rom. 9:33; (61) Rom. 10:15; (62) Rom. 11:8; (63) Rom. 11:26; (64) Rom. 12:19; (65) Rom. 14:11; (66) Rom. 15:3; (67) Rom. 15:9; (68) Rom. 15:21; (69) 1 CORINTHIANS 1:19; (70) 1 Cor. 1:31; (71) 1 Cor. 2:9; (72 ) 1 Cor. 3:19; (73) 1 Cor. 9:9; (74) 1 Cor. 9:10; (75) 1 Cor. 10:7; (76) 1 Cor. 14:21; (77) 1 Cor. 15:45; (78) 1 Cor. 15:54; (79) 2 CORINTHIANS 4:13; (80) 2 Cor. 8:15; (81) 2 Cor. 9:9; (82) GALATIANS 3:10 (twice); (83) Gal. 3:13; (84) Gal. 4:22; (85) Gal. 4:27; (86) HEBREWS 10:7; (87) 1 PETER 1:16".

GOD KEEPS HIS PROMISES!

"It is written".

God says His Word
has been put down "in writing".

Assuming you have a faithful translation;

"...This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4:21.

Only God's special revelation is the written revelation. Aka our Bible. Matthew 4:4 applies to all His words.

37818 said:

Only God's special revelation is the written revelation. Aka our Bible. Matthew 4:4 applies to all His words.

Click to expand...

I don't see any bad advice, false Doctrines, or words we can't live by, in any of the faithful translations from reliable sources.

That is where we get derived PLENARY, VERBAL INERRANCY of the Bible and where I get derived INSPIRATION.

From Old Testament scriptures quoted in the New Testament, as the rule for INSPIRATION doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks.

We can live by every word as, in my case, be assured it is INSPIRED, by the reliability of the underlying texts and the ability and God-Honoring attitude and motivation of the translators, using copacetic approaches in any given translation.

If someone were to say that the versions listed below "are Not Inspired", I would somberly, solemnly, earnestly, gravely suggest to them: "Be Careful".

While, the words can be different, so was "Thou shalt not kill", however it appeared on Moses' tablets of stone),

and the Hebrew: לֹא תִּרְצָח ‎; lo tirṣaḥ,

and the Greek, φονεύω (phoneuó) -- to kill, murder,

and "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER".

So, those words are all different, but are they all Inspired?

I say, "yes".

What would God say? That it is His Word, in writing?

How about the common vernacular, "don't commit intentional (unjustified) homicide"?

I say that is INSPIRED, as good as God talking straight to you.

Same thing.

Conversely, would I call unfaithfully translated, from knowingly tampered with spirious underlying documents, using subjective translation approaches, influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, and God only knows what else, "The Word of God", or Inspired?

Not on your life.

Like the New World Translation, of the 'Jehovah Witnesses' and all it's sister versions created from the same underlying Greek documents (Westcott and Hort)?

They simply belong in the waste basket, too, like the Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B), from which they actually originated, preserved over the Centuries, from non-use.

The Jews burned worn out manuscripts from over use.

And why weren't the Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B) used more, to get worn out?

Because, they were known to not be authentic, illegitimate, null and void, and not valid, or trustworthy at all, and so to think about any reasoning they would have had to use them would have been nonsense. All still is.)

Faithful translations:

(1) Peshitta Bible (150 A.D.);
(2) Itala Bible (157 A.D.;
(3) Erasmus Bible (1522 A.D.);
(4) Tyndale's Bible (1525);
(5) Luther's Bible (1534);
(6) Coverdale Bible (1535);
(7) Matthew's Bible (1537);
(8) The Great Bible (1539);
(9) Stephen's Bible (1550);
(10) The Geneva Bible (1560);
(11) The Bishop's Bible (1568);
(12) Beza's Bible (1604);
(13) The King James Bible (1611).

[Cf. CASE FOR KJV, BFT #83, by DAW, p. 38].

There is some kind of Supernatural Activity going on there, in Bible versions we can trust our very soul with, much akin to His Promises to Preserve His Word, 'in writing', SO HE COULD TALK TO US, as to the Patriarchs;

It's Providential;

From: How We Got Our Bible

(Sorry, the scripture citations must have been stolen by one more heretic. It wouldn't be the first time, if they did. They are out there. They even write their own 'bibles', you know.)

1. ADAM AND EVE. (): "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

(16) And the LORD God COMMANDED the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.

(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." ()

2. ENOCH. (): "And Enoch WALKED WITH GOD. . . And Enoch WALKED WITH GOD and he was not; for God took him." ()

3. NOAH. (): "But Noah FOUND GRACE in the eyes of the Lord." (Gen. 6:8) "And the LORD SAID unto Noah, COME thou and all thy house unto the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." ().

4. ABRAHAM. (): "Now the Lord HAD SAID unto Abram, GET THEE OUT of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house unto a land that I will shew thee." ().

5. MOSES.

(1) : "And the Lord said unto Moses, WRITE THIS FOR A MEMORIAL in a BOOK, and REHEARSE IT in the ears of Joshua . . ." ()

(2) : "And Moses WROTE all the WORDS of the Lord, . . ."

() "And he took the BOOK of the covenant and READ IN THE AUDIENCE OF THE PEOPLE: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we DO, and be OBEDIENT."

() "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and COMMANDMENTS WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN; that thou mayest TEACH THEM." ().

Alan Gross said:

That is where we get derived PLENARY, VERBAL INERRANCY of the Bible and where I get derived INSPIRATION.

Click to expand...

KJV-only author H. D. Williams asserted: “There is no such thing as re-inspiration, double inspiration, derivative inspiration, or advanced revelation for any translation to allow reinscripturation” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 83). D. A. Waite declared: “I do not believe there is such a thing as ‘derivative inspiration’’’ (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 116). D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no such thing as derivative when you talk about God-breathing (inspiration) of His words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 137). H. D. Williams claimed: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21). H. D. Williams asserted: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63). H. D. Williams contended: “Since the Words of God are unchanging in their original pure, perfect, inspired ’jots and tittles,’ no derivative can be formed” (Pure Words, p. 17).

Arthur Pink maintained that “2 Timothy 3:16 preclude different degrees of inspiration” (Studies in the Scriptures, December, 1949, p. 16). John R. Rice wrote: “There are no degrees of inspiration; there is no progress from a lesser to a greater degree of inspiration” (Our God-Breathed Book, p. 100).

Jim Taylor argued against the idea of derived inspiration, and he noted that “inspiration is not an attribute. It is a process” (In Defense of the TR, p. 39, footnote 33). Jim Taylor maintained that “inspiration does not extend to a translation” (p. 39). Jim Taylor concluded: “Since inspiration is not an ongoing process, nor a quality, ‘derivative inspiration’ is not possible” (p. 327). David Cloud asserted: “Inspiration was the supernatural process by which the Holy Spirit gave chosen words to holy men of old so that what they wrote was the inerrant Word of God. No translation can lay claim to this process. No translation is ‘given by inspiration’” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 214).

The KJV and other faithful Bible translations may actually be "more like an exact copy than a derivation", according to: Definition of DERIVATION

Thanks to derived inspiration.

Thanks for posting.

See the posts below and/or
"Read the articles by Larry Pettegrew
of Master's College and Seminary.

He makes note of the orthodoxy
of the derivative inspiration position."

You and I ARE GOING TO DISAGREE.

No one is talking about "Word-for-Word Translating", or any other definition that would indicate the Holy Perfection of God, Himself.

I wrote it like this, once, "The KJV (sufficiently) Inspired by God".

The Word I hold in my hand is God's Inspired Word.

It is Alive.

Logos1560 said:

KJV-only author H. D. Williams asserted: “There is no such thing as

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

re-inspiration, double inspiration, derivative inspiration, or advanced revelation for any translation to allow reinscripturation” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 83).

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

D. A. Waite declared: “I do not believe there is such a thing as

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

‘derivative inspiration’’’ (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 116). D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no such thing as derivative when you talk about G

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

D. A. Waite asserted:

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

“There is no such thing as derivative when you talk about God-breathing (inspiration) of His words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 137).

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

H. D. Williams claimed: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21).

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

H. D. Williams asserted: “If we attribute

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63).

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

H. D. Williams contended: “Since

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

the Words of God are unchanging in their original pure, perfect, inspired ’jots and tittles,’ no derivative can be formed” (Pure Words, p. 17).

Click to expand...

I understand the position of your credentialed linguists noted, and some posted by you, refuting Central Seminary, who are defining 'derived inspiration', as "re-inspiration, ...or advanced revelation, ...reinscripturation”, "Word-for-Word Translating", "double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men", "purity", "derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect", and that "the Words of God are unchanging in their original pure, perfect, inspired ’jots and tittles,’

especially, if their concern was for "The King James Only Religion", and I understand the regular everyday take on 'inspiration' that has become a part of the religious vernacular that is quoted from Andy, here:

"My view is that inspiration only applies to the original manuscripts. Inspiration means God-breathed. God did not breathe out a translation or a copy. What is derived is the benefits/qualities of the original God-breathed work."

Andy
#2aefting, Jan 7, 2004
...

I had any number of definitions from the net, to support my usage of the word 'derived', of synonyms which means anything but 'perfect', however, you are already familiar with my meaning and understanding, because they were articulated by Dr. Bob, Pastor Bob, Brother Cassidy, and a letter from Larry Pettegrew, below;

The folks you quoted are simply making 'derived' mean 'perfect', coloring it over with a definition of God's Direct 'inspiration', instead of qualifying 'derived', to be 'not perfect', but in every way sufficiently inspired, having come imperfectly from the Totally Inspired Original Perfect Autographs.

Derived Inspiration
"Web Jan 8, 2004 · "Derived inspiration is simply that same process. If what we have in English is an accurate reflection of the original languages, then they are still the inspired Words of God…"

"Dr. Bob said,

"Every WORD of God is fully and equally inspired (verbal plenary, if you want to get technical). These WORDS are in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

"Every WORD in a receptor language - into which the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic are ACCURATELY translated - is "derived" to be inspired like the original.

"While God did not breath out words in English, nor did he miraculously guide the translators, our translations derive inspiration in their faithfulness.

"Sadly, there are some translations that are NOT accurate. While some of the verses may be faithful to the original, others are intentionally corrupted. Those are not trustworthy (New World Version, TEV both come to mind as ones NOT trustworthy).

"Dr. Bob Griffin
"Jesus knows me, this I love"
...

Pastor Bob said,

"BAPTIST BOARD BULLETIN!!!!

"This is the first time in the history of my tenure here on the BB that I agree 100% with a Dr. Bob Griffin post in the Bible Versions/Translations Forum.

"Nice job Doc!

#7Pastor_Bob, Jan 7, 2004

...
"Originally posted by russell55:

"So, if the words in English are not breathed out by God, nor are they the product of a miraculous process, why is the word "inspired" used to describe them?"

"Pastor Bob said, "Think of it this way; suppose I send you a letter containing the testimony of how I was saved and called into the ministry etc... You were blessed by that testimony so you decided to type it and send it as an email to some one you thought might enjoy it as well. Suppose they forwarded it on to other people from there and it ended up going to a Missionary friend who operates a Bible College in some foreign country. He has some young men preparing for the ministry that he feels would be blessed by this testimony so he translates it into their language so they can understand it.

"Now, if you copied it accurately in your email, and if your friends forwarded it properly without adding or taking away from it, and the Missionary accurately translated it, it can still be said that all along the way, the testimony was in my own words.

"Derived inspiration is simply that same process. If what we have in English is an accurate reflection of the original languages, then they are still the inspired Words of God. You have to ask yourself the question, "If they are not inspired, at what point did they cease to be inspired?"

#10Pastor_Bob, Jan 7, 2004

...
con't

"An objection, by LRL71, "Derived Inspiration? I hope that I am getting the sense of what this means, in precise terms, from both Dr. Bob and Pastor Bob. I have a question, and also a comment.

"Question: What Scripture verse(s) or passages would promote such a view?

"Comment: whatever happened to Infallibility and Inerrancy? Methinks that the line has been blurred between 'derived inspiration' and infallibility. If God's Word is infallible, wouldn't this be the more precise term to use instead of 'derived inspiration'? I think a problem arises with the fact that the original autographs are the only thing that God had inspired (theopneustos), and the quality of inerrancy (the Word being sharper than any two edged sword....) runs through to the copies in that, although not perfectly representative of the originals in the exact wording and letters, the copies, being faithfully transmitted despite human copying errors, faithfully reflect the infallibility of God's Word.

"The reason I would have a problem with 'derived' inspiration is that the miraculous event of inspiration only happened once with the autographs, period. To insert the teaching of 'derived' inspiration is to insinuate that the copies are also 'inspired' in the same sense of a miraculous event as the original autographs were. Inerrancy doesn't really fit the picture unless one takes this doctrine and apply it to the copied manuscripts. This is why I would be careful to be as precise as possible when describing such a new term. Perhaps between the both of you (Dr. Bob and Pastor Bob), you can hash out the definition with Scripture references.

"The other problem with derived inspiration is that I think it's a trojan horse developed by KJV-onlyists (and some KJV-preferred folks) in order to circumvent the long-standing doctrinal positions (see the Westminster Confession and the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, for example) of an inerrant and inspired original autograph(s) and an infallible Bible from which we have errant but faithfully reproduced copies (manuscripts and printed Bibles). They (the KJV-onlyists) would promote this 'doctrine' to apply only to the KJV/MT/TR and claim that theirs is the only biblical 'solution' to the Bible text, just like they promote their views of 'preservation'.

#11LRL71, Jan 7, 2004
...

"I am not sure where you got your information but derivative inspiration was not formulated by KJVO's or even KJVP's. It has been around for a long time. Read the articles by Larry Pettegrew of Master's College and Seminary. He makes note of the orthodoxy of the derivative inspiration position.

#12skanwmatos, Jan 8, 2004
...

"I took classes from Larry when he was a ThM candidate at Central Seminary! I'd wager Doc Cassidy knew him there as well.

"Small world.



Dr Bob Griffin

...
"I think I do understand from your post what derived inspiration means, though. Derived inspiration refers to an inspired MESSAGE rather than to actual inspired WORDS. As long as a translation accurately reflects God's inspired message originally given to us through God's inspired words, that message has "derived" inspiration.

russell55, Jan 8, 2004

...
"In Textual Criticism class Brother Cassidy showed us a letter from him, written while he was still at Central, regarding his acceptance of derivative inspiration. In fact, of all the points they discussed in the letter, that was just about the only one they agreed on!

#16skanwmatos, Jan 8, 2004
...

"Originally posted by LRL71:

"I would be interested in seeing what Larry Pettegrew has to say regarding derivative inspiration."


"We're in luck! I was sitting here in the media room reading the Board and Brother Cassidy saw the lights on and came in. He had been working late in his office and thought somebody had locked up without turning off the lights. I asked him for a copy of the letter from Larry Pettegrew and he want back to his office and got it from the file (which is a small miracle in itself as he can never find anything in the office without the help of his secretary!). (Ouch! He just slapped me on the back of the head!)

"The letter is on Central Baptist Seminary letterhead, is dated April 20, 1995, and is signed by Larry Pettegrew. On page 2, first paragraph, Brother Pettegrew states, regarding the Niagara Bible Conference (out of which grew the Fundamentalist movement) "These men believed in derived inspiration for the King James Bible, just as I explained in my paper." The paper in question was written by Brother Pettegrew in, I believe, 1994 in defense of the position Central took on the issue of inerrancy. Central had been attacked by some KJVO's for "departing from the fundamentalist faith." The paper was written as an defense of Central's position against those what had launched the attack.

"Brother Cassidy brought a copy of the paper along with the above letter. The paper is not dated, is 13 pages long, including end notes, and is titled "The King James Only Religion." On page 5 of that paper Dr. Peggegrew writes, "Yes, translations partake of derivative inspiration as long as they reflect accurately the original documents (II Tim. 3:15)." Dr. Pettegrew expands on that statement in endnote #3, pages 11 and 12. "By the term 'derivative inspiration' is meant that a copy or translation is the Word of God to the degree that it reflects and reproduces the original text. In the words of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 'We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.' K. McCune adds: 'In the Scriptural record, there are examples where the copies of God's Word were considered authoritative in as much as they reproduced the autographa (Deut 17:14-20) . . . . The authority of the copy lay in the assumed correct copying of the inspired original" (p. 20).

"Jesus Christ used a copy of Isaiah to proclaim His Messianic purposes
Luke 4:16-21), and in so doing placed His stamp of approval on the copy as truly representing God's Word. Likewise, the apostles used current copies of the Old Testament in their defense of the Christian message (Acts 17:2; 18:28). Divine authority could only have been granted their arguments as they set forth the true message as given by God, even though they received that message derivatively through copies of the autographs.

"This is not to say that Jesus Christ or the Apostles saw no difference between the original text and their copies and translations. But they ignored any minor differences in their practical use of the Word of God. 'They approached their Bibles in the common sense fashion with which anyone approaches a copy of an original work. To the extent that the copy reproduced the original Word of God, to that extent the copy derived authority as being the Word of God also' (McCune, 23)."

"Well, this has gotten all too long, and it is time to get home to bed.
I hope you found this helpful.

"Oh, and Dr. Bob, Brother Cassidy says "Hello."
#17skanwmatos, Jan 8, 2004

Alan Gross said:

"Derived inspiration is simply that same process. If what we have in English is an accurate reflection of the original languages, then they are still the inspired Words of God. You have to ask yourself the question, "If they are not inspired, at what point did they cease to be inspired?"

Click to expand...

It is not soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that post-NT translating is simply the same process as the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Inspiration may soundly be considered a term for the process of how the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles so that it may not be a quality or attribute that is transferable. The process of the giving of Scripture by inspiration of God ended with the completion of the New Testament. Any translating done by God or by the prophets and apostles in that writing and recording Scripture is not necessarily the same thing as post-NT translation since that earlier translating was part of the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration.

The same word inspiration was used concerning the holy men of God or the prophets and apostles who received Scripture at 2 Peter 1:21 in the Latin Vulgate. Stephen Westcott’s modern-spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe New Testament of the Latin Vulgate 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.” Inspiration is the term for how the Scriptures were given, not for how they are translated after the completion of the New Testament.

Perhaps it could be incorrect to add to the Scriptures the idea that a quality of inspiration is in the words and especially to add the opinion that that quality can be transferred in post-NT translating. Before your question is valid, it has to be demonstrated that inspiration is a quality or attribute in the words instead of being the term for how the Scriptures were given 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).

Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Taylor again noted: “Keep in mind that inspiration describes the process by which God recorded His words for man” (p. 76). Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). David O’Steen wrote: “Revelation demands inspiration which is the process by which the Spirit of God gives the words of God in writing (2 Sam. 23:2, Ps. 45:1)” (Study Notes, p. 36). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). David Cloud noted: “The process of inspiration was something that was completed in the apostolic age” (Faith, p. 55). D. A. Waite wrote: “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Waite wrote: “The originals were given by the process of inspiration” (p. 47). Waite noted: “It is true that the process of inspiration applies only to the autographs and resulted in inspired Words—the original Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek being given by God’s process of breathing out His Words” (p. 56). Peter van Kleech Sr. asserted: “The immediate inspiration of Scripture was a once-for-all, unique process applicable only to the original writings of Scripture or the autographa” (Exegetical Grounding, p. 33). Steve Combs wrote: “A clear statement of the process and product of inspiration is found in Matthew 4:4” (Practical Theology, p. 34). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Dennis Kwok asserted: “The process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God” (VPP, p. 23). Jack McElroy wrote: “Sounds like inspiration is a method or process, doesn’t it?” (Which Bible, p. 238). Charles Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Thomas Strouse wrote: “Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 43). Thomas Strouse noted: “The Holy Ghost came upon holy but fallible men so that they were Divinely moved (pheromenoi) in the process of inspiration to produce the product of inspiration, namely the autographa” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 240). In his note on 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter Ruckman asserted: “The process of ‘inspiration’ is the Holy Spirit breathing His words through somebody’s mouth (2 Pet. 1:21) and these words then being written down” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 1591).

Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32). Does 2 Timothy 3:16 state how scripture is given? Gordon Clark observed: “In ordinary language the word how always refers to a process” (Religion, Reason, p. 138). Did the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to God to the prophets and apostles end with the completion of the New Testament?

Logos1560 said:

John R. Rice wrote: “There are no degrees of inspiration; there is no progress from a lesser to a greater degree of inspiration” (Our God-Breathed Book, p. 100).

Click to expand...

What's with the crossing out of the quotes from these authors??

John of Japan said:

What's with the crossing out of the quotes from these authors??

Click to expand...

I do not know what causes that crossing out, and I have been unable to remove it in editing. It is not something that I add. It shows up after I post the statements. I have had that happen before, but I have not figured out how to get rid of it when it happens.

@Logos1560
If what is to be posted has, for what ever reason, an "s" in brakets, it is a Board posting instruction to strike out the text.

Avoid using brakets.

Logos1560 said:

I do not know what causes that crossing out, and I have been unable to remove it in editing. It is not something that I add. It shows up after I post the statements. I have had that happen before, but I have not figured out how to get rid of it when it happens.

Click to expand...

Weird!

Logos1560 said:

‘inspiration’

Click to expand...

Alan Gross said:

You and I ARE GOING TO DISAGREE.

Click to expand...

I was wrong, we do agree on what 'inspiration' is.

John of Japan said:

What's with the crossing out of the quotes from these authors??

Click to expand...

We don't like Pink, so he's automatically lined out to express our displeasure.

It's @Salty 's idea.

JonC said:

We don't like Pink, so he's automatically lined out to express our displeasure.

It's @Salty 's idea.

Click to expand...

LOL!

Although, the quote from one of our brothers uses the word 'process', the 'derived inspiration' has more to do with 'the result of the Lord's Promise of preservation in the translation process' than in the initial process of 'Plenary Inspiration' that is spoken of in the Bible, as to how the Original Autographs came about.

The comment, "Derived inspiration" is the result of the Lord Superintending over the appropriate translation process, prayerfully by saved individuals, of rationally determined authentic preserved texts.

The result then has 'derived inspiration' from the Lord's Hand of Preservation in the process, rather than 'Plenary Inspiration' as from the initial process of the Original Autographs (as opposed to both being "simply that same process", exactly.)

So, what on Earth is this other process, resulting in 'derived inspiration'?

Well, you notice all of the men quoted use the term 'inspiration', as synonymous with 'Plenary Inspiration'.

Why would the word 'Plenary' ever be used for 'Plenary Inspiration', if 'inspiration' already means, 'Plenary Inspiration'?

They use it to mean the same thing, but the Word of God is not just any book and God's Promise of preserving His Word has not been left solely dependant on the carnal reasoning and abilities to translate, or for even being able to specifically articulate the entire scheme of their translation 'process'.

So, now what?

God, that's what.

Apart from the scriptures of Him giving the Word, He has many scriptures qualifying and defining what He has done in the preservation of His 'Book'.

The result of God's Activity in the preservation of His Word is that it is not just any other normal 'book'.

His Bible has been preserved by an overall process of Supernatural Superintendence resulting in a translation with Transcendent Inspiration (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.

This Transcendent Inspiration is derived from the Original having Plenary Inspiration.

Does that help?

To what extent is this derived and Transcendent Inspiration?

Look at it.

Look at the Bible's integrity, by any measure.

Did that 'come about', naturally?

Has it's effect on individuals and nations been natural?

Has it been shown to have natural Authority?

Or is it sharper than any two-edged sword?

God's Words are Life.

The Holy Spirit testifies with it.

Did the Holy Spirit just leave the copies in the original languages and the process of translation to the capris of man's flesh to RESULT in A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY that He would be able to confirm and use and testify with?

No. The Result is Supernatural with God's measure of Inspiration.

To what extent, again?

To the extent that His Word is what He uses.

He speaks to mankind by using His Words we have in writing.

He saw to it.

By the same token, do we speak of intentionally tampered with and knowingly spurious documents intentionally edited by known Gnostic heretic's, omitting every reference to Deity they could possibly get away with 'transendent' or 'inspired', as derived by their preservation from the Original Autographs, Supernaturally?

I don't think that we could expect them to be or expect an intelligent person to say they were.

I do believe we have the Inspired Word of God, in writing, however.

Not that the KJV is or ever has been the only one, of course.

The KJV is from a long line of Supernatural volumes God has chosen to preserve and use for His Own good pleasure.

And as far along as Satan has gotten in the Modern versions, he hasn't yet and won't be able to destroy it.

You know why?

Because, Jesus said that the Words He spoke would judge the world in the last day.

And how did He know that His Words would be written down and preserved to be used at the Judgment?

Because, despite what they have recorded in all of the Modern "bibles", Jesus is God.

That's how.