The "scriptures" are said to be "Given by the Inspiration of God", and I, therefore, say "The Bible we hold in our is Inspired."

Logos1560 said:

The KJV itself in its rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16 suggests that the term inspiration concerns the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles,

Click to expand...

"I believe that Inspiration is not 'a process' but 'an Entity', an Eternal Entity, a fact or deed," (SEE BELOW).

Logos1560 said:

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to post-NT translations,

Click to expand...

Alan Dale Gross said:

"What is Inspired Scripture? In order to get a Biblical answer to this question one must seek out what the Bible says about it. Scripture claims itself to be Given by Inspiration:

"2 Timothy 3:15-17; "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. All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Click to expand...

"I believe that Inspiration is not 'a process' but 'an Entity', an Eternal Entity, a fact or deed.

"If the KJV Translators had believed it was 'a process' they would have translated II Timothy 3:16, “pasa graphe theopneustos” as “All scripture is God breathed.”

"In that sentence God Breathed is an adjective, or present participle used as adjective, which describes the noun 'Scripture'.

"A verbal adjective would imply 'a becoming', but the Word did not become. He is. But the translators, and their English predecessors, were led to avoid that rendering, and I believe they knew in their hearts that Inspiration was an Eternal Entity, a noun.

"Even though the phrase “by Inspiration of God” describes Scripture it is at least equally valid to look at it as a noun which is the object of the sentence.

"Here Paul could not have been speaking to Timothy of any original manuscripts. Those of the Old Testament were gone. And since II Timothy was probably Paul’s last epistle much of the New Testament already had been written.

"Graphe in this verse means 'Scripture' of both Testaments. The Holy Ghost said that Timothy had known the Scriptures, and so he had them before him from childhood.

"The word theopneustos was Given by the Holy Ghost to Paul. It is unique. It appears only once in the New Testament and is only infrequently seen in earlier pagan Greek writing.

"Some defenders of the KJV believe that theopneustos is a “verbal adjective,” essentially a past participle. That belief is more compatible with the concept of Inspiration as a process which occurred in time, that is, 'a becoming'. They say that “pasa graphe theopneustos” means all Scripture is God Breathed. If theopneustos is a verbal adjective the Translation should be “God Breathed” and not “given by inspiration of God.”

"The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives theopneustos as a noun. It says that Scripture is: “the product of the Creative Breath of God.

"In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine Product”

"... When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture" or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine Breath, he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the Product of a specifically Divine Operation.” It is a Product, an Eternal Entity, and not 'a process' or becoming.

"Adding the suffix -tion to a verb in English makes a noun. “All scripture is the breath of God” treats theopneustos as a noun and would be a better rendering than “All scripture is God breathed,” which would treat theopneustos as an adjective.

"Neither is as sublime or correct as “All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God,” which we have in the KJV.

"Theopneustos is masculine and graphe is feminine. By the rules of Greek grammar they should agree in gender. In order for them to agree we would have to change the os ending to an eta, and we would then have 'breath of a goddess', rather than 'Breath of God'. But in Greek there is no feminine adjective which ends with omicron sigma. Theopneustos is masculine.

"Theopneustos occurs only once in the NT and therefore is an extremely important word that must be properly rendered. Of course it does not need to occur more than once. But it is a noun, naming an Eternally Completed Entity.

"When the KJV Translators put “Given by Inspiration” they were rendering theopneustos as a noun. According to rules of Greek usage, juxtaposing these two nominatives, graphe and theopneustos, implies the equivalence of them.

"Also implied is the verb to be, “is,” between them. The absence of the verb to be is called an ellipsis that actually gives emphasis that it should be rendered in Translation.

"There is a second implied "is" in verse 16 followed by an adjective. This context is consistent with Inspiration as a noun, because Inspiration is qualified by being described with the adjective, profitable.

"In addition the “Given by” reminds us that the scriptures are themselves an Eternal Gift from God, not to be whimsically meddled with. The Scriptures were Inspired from Eternity, Inspired while they were being put into the “original autographs,” are still Inspired today, and must always be so, forever Settled."

Alan Dale Gross said:

"I believe that Inspiration is not 'a process' but 'an Entity', an Eternal Entity, a fact or deed,"

​

Click to expand...

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). Richard Brash wrote: “’Inspiration’ is the name we give to the process by which God gives all the words of the Bible to the human authors” (How God Preserved, p. 21).

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). Jim Taylor again noted: “Keep in mind that inspiration describes the process by which God recorded His words for man” (p. 76). Chester Kulus defined inspiration as “inspiration refers to the process whereby God, that is, God the Father (2 Timothy 3:16), God the Son (1 Peter 1:11), and God the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), moved in holy men to record accurately His Words, so as to produce the Word of God” (Those So-called, p. xxii; One Tittle, p. 396). Ed DeVries observed: “God breathed, God spoke, and as the breath came out He was speaking the words of the Bible” (Divinely Inspired, p. 3). Ed DeVries added: “And as God breathed, as God spoke, men wrote,” and he quoted from Exodus 20:1 [“And God spake all these words”] and from Exodus 24:4 [“And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD”]. (Ibid.). Charles Swindoll noted: “When God revealed His truth for human writers to record, He ‘breathed out’ His Word” (Growing Deep, p. 62).

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). David Cloud defined or explained inspiration as “the process whereby the Scriptures were given by the Holy Spirit through holy men of old” (Why We Hold, p. 508). Jeff Farnham referred to “the process of God’s inspiring the Apostles by giving truth from His very mouth into the very ears of holy men of God” (God’s Forever Word, p. 145).

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).

In his definition for the term inspiration, H. D. Williams wrote: “’It is a very technical Biblical term indicating a miraculous process and product” (Miracle, p. 11). H. D. Williams wrote: “Other ‘literal’ verses teach the process of ‘inspiration’ as men were ‘moved by the Holy Ghost’ to record the Words in the autographs, the Words on the original manuscripts, which is the product of ‘inspiration’” (p. 43). H. D. Willims noted: “The Scripture given in the original Words was God-breathed by a miraculous process” (p. 56). H. D. Williams asserted: “Inspiration is a very special process and product of God, which cannot be transferred and cannot be applied to man’s productions” (Pure Words, p. 19).

Douglas Stauffer maintained “that the process of inspiration is solely dependent upon God” (One Book One Authority, p. 457). William Byers wrote: “The process of inspiration is spoken of in II Timothy 3:16” (History of the KJB, p. 7). 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). Referring to the term inspiration, Bruce Lackey (1930-1988) wrote: “Scripture nowhere explains the process” (Why I Believe, p. 18). David Sorenson noted: “God has breathed out (i.e., spoken) the words which comprise the sum total of Scripture. That process is known as inspiration” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 177). Michael Bates maintained that “the process of inspiration is not repeated—it is completed” (Inspiration, p. 273). Steve Combs wrote: “A clear statement of the process and product of inspiration is found in Matthew 4:4” (Practical Theology, p. 34; Magnified, p. 42). 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).

Bryan Ross wrote: “Inspiration is the supernatural process whereby God the Holy Spirit moved upon human authors to have them record in writing those aspects of God’s revelation (written revelation) that He wanted mankind to possess forever (Isaiah 30:8)” (From This Generation, Vol. 1, p. 70). 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 asserted: “The autographa were the product of the process of inspiration, and consequently there were without error or inerrant” (p. 68). 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). Peter Ruckman wrote: “This clearly indicates that inspiration or God-breathing had to do with somebody breathing out of their mouth, speaking words, then somebody writing down the words that were spoken” (Theological Studies, Book 15, p. 15).

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). Jason Harris observed: “Inspiration is that process by which humans were supernaturally moved by the Holy Spirit to accurately record in the original autographs the very words that God breathed out” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 32). David Sorenson wrote: “The essence of verbal inspiration is that God has spoken whether to or through chosen penmen which then put into writing His Word (and its very words)” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 43). 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 not this miraculous process of the giving of the Scriptures by direct inspiration to God to the prophets and apostles end with the completion of the New Testament? Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a verse that supports the relegation of inspiration as a term for this supernatural process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles?

Alan Dale Gross said:

James H. Sightler, M.D. (1937-2019)

​

Click to expand...

Is James Sightler, M.D., a Greek scholar? Would he have a possible motive of trying to justify his father Harold Sightler's KJV-only teaching? Is James Sightler possibly following the claims of Gail Riplinger?


H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite as noting: “Theopneustos is a compound adjective which comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and pneustos (an adjective meaning ’breathed’). Pneustos comes from the verb, peno ’to breathe.’ It does not come from nor is it synonymous with the noun, pneuma. It comes clearly from the verb, pneo (to breathe)” (DiVietro, Cleaning-Up, p. iv). Ralph Earle asserted that the Greek word “literally means ‘God breathed’--theos, ‘God,’ and pneo, ‘breathe’” (Word Meanings, p. 409). Marvin Vincent also maintained that this word comes from the Greek noun for God and the Greek verb ‘to breathe’ and meant “God-breathed” (Word Studies, IV, p. 317). E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) defined the Greek word as “God-breathed, God-inspired” (Lexicon, p. 414). D. A. Waite asserted: “Gail Riplinger and others are totally in error to claim that an adjective (pneustos) could be taken as a noun (pneuma). This is contrary to all Greek grammar, whether classical or Koine. It is clearly false teaching and false doctrine” (DiVietro, Cleaning-Up, p. iv).

D. A. Waite wrote: “God never once caused any human writers or translators to operate any more under his DIVINE INSPIRATION of the words in any translation or version throughout human history thus far (nor will He in the future) in the same or even in a similar sense as He did when He originally gave His Word under DIVINE INSPIRATION” (Dean Burgon News, August, 1980, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Inspiration refers solely to the original and preserved God-breathed Words, which were recorded by the prophets and Apostles” (Pure Words, p. 20). H. D. Williams asserted: “The Greek word, graphe, in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the autographs” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 193). In the preface of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite concerning the three Greek words that make up the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16. Waite noted that “these three Words refer exclusively to God’s miraculous action of His original breathing out of His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments” (p. iv, also p. 2). Waite added: “These Words do not refer to any Bible translation in any language of the world” (Ibid.).

Logos1560 said:

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to post-NT translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations.

Click to expand...

No, it is not "consistent, just, and logical" for you to speculate that the Preservation of the Inspiration would "in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations."

That typical 'General' vs 'Specific' carnal reasoning of yours, using a mind affected by the Curse of the Fall of Adam without the Aid of the Holy Spirit of God, might frame your bright idea about all this into a slam dunk win for you, but it is typically stupid to assert.

No, the spurious productions of intentionally altered, forged, abridged, repeatedly 'corrected', 'manuscripts' of sorts, resurfaced from the Occult Underground after hundreds of years, that have admittedly been over-written by nearly a dozen 'scribes' are not what they claim to be by any stretch of the imagination, and are most suited to only be dismissed out of hand and viewed with abhorrence and indignation, before being washed and burnt, and not included in "the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16" that refers to copies and especially even to post-NT translations, along with the Old Testament copies used by our Lord and the writers of the New Testament.

According to Vocabulary.com, 'univocally' means in a way that has only one possible meaning or interpretation, leaving no room for doubt or confusion. [1, 2]...
"There's no way to misunderstand something that's truly univocal — its meaning is consistent and obvious."

Logos1560 said:

Would including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture?

Click to expand...

Would your soul still have the Holy Spirit Dwelling inside you, if you expressed some imperfect behavior?

Inspiration does not always follow in the exact same set of tracks, as expectable variants, but error is not.

'Specifically', you desire for every point in the Letter of the Law to be reproduced perfectly, as if they were the Original Autographs Directly Inspired by God Himself, when Generally speaking, the Spirit of the Law would have everyone Compare Spiritual things with Spiritual, understanding that the manuscript evidence extant would unearth and remedy "any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture."

Logos1560 said:

Would the later printing of copies of Scripture make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in the printing process?

Click to expand...

Ask Jesus about the Scriptures He Used.

What do you consider an error? When, 95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees and 5% not don't agree with the 95% vast majority, but also don't agree with one another, then the Comparative Process, (which actually is 'a process'), rules the day. That result is Inspired by the Promises of God and as with the Preservation shown in the last seven English Translations of the Bible, they demonstrate a Super-Human extent in similarity.

These seven versions, just as some English examples, prove the Original Inspiration of God and, in like kind, God's Preservation of that Inspiration of His Word.

King James Bible
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Geneva Bible of 1587
"For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God,
and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,"

Bishops' Bible of 1568
"All scripture is geuen by inspiration of God,
and is profitable to doctrine, to reproue, to correction, to instruction which is in ryghteousnesse",

The Great Bible 1539
"All scripture geuen by inspiracyon of God,
is proffitable to teache, to improue, to amende and to instruct in ryghtewesnes",

Matthew's Bible of 1537;


Coverdale Bible of 1535
"For all scripture geue by inspiracion of God,
is profitable to teach, to improue, to amende, and to instructe in righteousnes,"

Tyndale Bible of 1526
"For all scripture geve by inspiracion of god
is proffitable to teache to improve to amende and to instruct in rightewesnes"

Alan Dale Gross said:

That typical 'General' vs 'Specific' carnal reasoning of yours, using a mind affected by the Curse of the Fall of Adam without the Aid of the Holy Spirit of God, might frame your bright idea about all this into a slam dunk win for you, but it is typically stupid to assert.

Click to expand...

You are wrong to question my salvation and to suggest that I supposedly do not have the aid of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. Are you violating forum rules?

As a true believer, the Holy Spirit of truth indwells me, and He guides me just as much as you may claim that He guides you.

Alan Dale Gross said:

No, it is not "consistent, just, and logical" for you to speculate that the Preservation of the Inspiration would "in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations."

Click to expand...

KJV-only author Steve Combs observed: “If 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to a copy or translation, then every time a translation is made, it is inspired, and every time a copy was made it was inspired” (Practical Theology of Bible Translating, p. 35; Translator’s Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus, p. 22; Magnified Above His Name, p. 43). Steve Combs wrote: “Copies and translations have to do with the transmission of Scripture through history. Inspiration pertains to the entrance of Scripture into history” (Translator’s Greek Grammar, p. 22; Magnified, p. 43).

Are all Bible translations Scripture in the same sense (univocally)? If Bible translations cannot exist without the indispensable process of inspiration, then it would be necessary for all Bible translations to be made by it. If all Bible translations are Scripture given by inspiration of God, then none of them are not Scripture.

Not all writings are God breathed. Only God breathed writings are Holy Scriptures.

Alan Dale Gross said:

What do you consider an error? When, 95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees and 5% not don't agree with the 95% vast majority, but also don't agree with one another, then the Comparative Process, (which actually is 'a process'), rules the day. That result is Inspired by the Promises of God and as with the Preservation shown in the last seven English Translations of the Bible, they demonstrate a Super-Human extent in similarity.

Click to expand...

You already know that I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text, and yet you seem to try improperly to associate me with it.

You seem to have been misinformed since 95% of the extant manuscript evidence does not agree word for word and jot and tittle for jot and tittle with each other. Are you repeating the claim of unreliable KJV-only sources? Can you actually demonstrate that every reading in the KJV has 95% extant manuscript support?

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals. To dump them into a ‘Byzantine’ basket is untenable” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 28; Identity of NT Text IV, p. 46). Wilbur Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained that “the great bulk of Byzantine manuscripts defies all attempts to group them” (Identity IV, p. 39; see also Fuller, True or False, p. 231). Wilbur Pickering maintained that “a typical ‘Byzantine’ MS will have 3-5 variants per page” (God has Preserved, p. 92). Gregory Lanier asserted: “Four of the key Byzantine witnesses for Acts and the Catholic Epistles (minuscules 18, 35, 319, 617) vary among themselves—that is, contain more than one reading for a given unit of text—8 percent of the time, representing nearly one thousand textual units” (Hixon, Myths and Mistakes in NT Criticism, p. 115). Peter Malik observed: “The notion of a stable Byzantine text is even less applicable to the manuscripts of Revelation, where the Byzantine tradition Is split into at least three major groups, and even these are far from uniform” (Ibid., footnote 26, p. 158).

Logos1560 said:

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).

Click to expand...

Nope. You missed it. 'Inspiration' can not exclusively be said to be 'a process', or 'way' "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." There is much more to it.

Matthew 4:4 states,
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that Proceedeth Out of the Mouth of God,”

I see these extremely shortsighted pronouncements by men, as being just that. They have their angle which simply amounts to unbelief. No one has, or can take Authority over the Word of God and that is just what folks are attempting to do and it hurts their feelings to think they'd have to give up their air of supremacy over everything about the Bible, just like as we've seen all those who's intent has been nothing more than to Change the Word of God, into something that appeals to their flesh.

"I'm saying that we've either go to admit this is the Word of God or we have to flee to the church, or to human reasoning or human experience as being the final authority. If there is no Word of God today, we have no other recourse. If God has not given us His Word, we have to decide what is God's Word. That's human reasoning.

"By the way, basing a doctrine on human experience is idolatry. Basing a doctrine on the church being the final authority is idolatry. The church is the idol. Letting the pope speak ex cathedra and saying that it is God Who is speaking is idolatry. You're making him as God.

"Human reasoning says that what we can reason, we'll believe. That's idolatry. So the truth is, you've got one choice of two. Either this Bible is the Word of God or we have no other place to turn but to idolatry. Did you hear me? Either this is the Word of God, or there is no place to turn but idolatry. Our three choices are human reasoning, human experience or the church, and they are each a form of idolatry." The Divine Inspiration Of The Bible

"The God of the Bible does not lie (Titus 1:2).
"His Word is to be Trusted (Psalm 19:7-11).
"If He says something we are to accept it and obey it (John 15:10).
"It is Satanic to question God's Holy Word (Genesis 3:1; John 17:17),
because when you do you question His very character - you challenge His right to be God!

"Who is man that men should do this (Job 38: 2-40:1)?

"Now, this can sound very scary to have someone tell you that it is wrong to question the Bible, but this writer did not say that you are not to question Bible teachers. In fact the Bible Commands you to question them (Acts 17:10-11; 1 John 4:1), yet at the same time you have a responsibility as a Christian to thoroughly study the Bible and accept it as Truth (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:14-17). Jot And Title Inspiration


According to the Scriptures themselves, "Scripture teaches that the words of Scripture are Inspired by God, and thus the entirety of the canonical Scriptures are Inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16", and as we see below,

"God did not Inspire people like Moses, Jeremiah, or Matthew; rather, the Words that He Gave to mankind through them are Inspired."

Alan Dale Gross said:

What do you consider an error? When, 95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees and 5% not don't agree with the 95% vast majority, but also don't agree with one another, then the Comparative Process, (which actually is 'a process'), rules the day. That result is Inspired by the Promises of God and as with the Preservation shown in the last seven English Translations of the Bible, they demonstrate a Super-Human extent in similarity.

These seven versions, just as some English examples, prove the Original Inspiration of God and, in like kind, God's Preservation of that Inspiration of His Word.

Click to expand...

Do you realize that our All-Knowing God, not only Knows everything that will ever happen, He Knows all the infinitesimal other variations of 'what could have happened'.

There were a myriad of prime opportunities to introduce some Scientific errors, or a contradiction in anything, or to screw up the language in a Translation at a blue million different points, for example, instead of Working them all together, with over 40 writers, over centuries to have them all fit together like a hand in a glove, across the board.

God had His Hand in the Creation of The Holy Bible and His Breath, too, in every Word that Goes Forth from His Mouth.

Man didn't do that. The Bible is more Perfect than man could have ever dreamed in a million years to accomplish.

The Word of God is essentially Perfect. Would you care to make it more Perfect? Where nothing absolutely is required to be added to it, or taken away from it? Or do you think that your effort to remove the Inspiration from copies and Translations of the Bible will keep you busy enough?

Logos1560 said:

You already know that I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text, and yet you seem to try improperly to associate me with it.

Click to expand...

Nothing I said had anything to do with associating you with advocating or recommending the Critical Text, defence.

Logos1560 said:

You seem to have been misinformed since 95% of the extant manuscript evidence does not agree word for word and jot and tittle for jot and tittle with each other.

Click to expand...

Your utter dependence upon adding a "Specific" criteria to a "General" concept, by your addition of "does not agree word for word and jot and tittle for jot and tittle with each other" means nothing at all, actually. You're just spinning your wheels.

Logos1560 said:

Are you repeating the claim of unreliable KJV-only sources?

Click to expand...

I didn't bring up anything about "agree word for word and jot and tittle", or "for jot and tittle (to agree) with each other", for you to say that is on a "KJV-only source", but those things are imbedded into your brain to where you may never know there is anything else out there. It's certainly the only thing that comes out of it.

I'll source someone KJV-only any time I prefer to, if they are speaking the Truth of the Word of God, like I will anyone else. I just leave their genuine Quackery's about "double-inspiration" and the King James being superior to the Original Language Manuscripts and most everything else Ruckman had for the tenants of his teachings, for them to try to defend those Doozies on their own. I understand a lot of what they are 'trying to say', but they have overstated their case.

Logos1560 said:

Can you actually demonstrate that every reading in the KJV has 95% extant manuscript support?

Click to expand...

Who said anything about the King James Version "has 95% extant manuscript support"? that you want them to think they are obligated to demonstate anything like that to you?

You are truly Eat Up with your distain for anything having to do with the King James Bible.

My 'Comparison Process' could just as easily be applied to a Court situation, or to people who've witnessed an accident, etc. 100 people saw it. 95 saw it the same and 5 saw it different and different from each other.

Those 5 you throw out as inadmissible.

The remaining 95, in the case of a Faithful Translation of the Bible, are an Anointed, Preserved, Inspired Scripture, by the Superintending Supernatural Unction of the Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God.

The Bible we hold in our hands is an Inspired Miracle.

You can't take it out of it.

Logos1560 said:

Wilbur Pickering asserted:

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

Wilbur Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

Wilbur Pickering maintained

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

Gregory Lanier asserted:

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

Peter Malik observed:

Click to expand...

The guys who wrote the 1943 novelty song "Mairzy Doats" ("Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey") pontificated that they knew it sounds like gibberish until you say it fast, translating to: "Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy."

Let that be a Blessing to you.

Alan Dale Gross said:

What do you consider an error? When, 95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees and 5% not don't agree with the 95% vast majority, but also don't agree with one another, then the Comparative Process, (which actually is 'a process'), rules the day.

Alan Dale Gross said:

Your utter dependence upon adding a "Specific" criteria to a "General" concept, by your addition of "does not agree word for word and jot and tittle for jot and tittle with each other" means nothing at all, actually. You're just spinning your wheels.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Your own "95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees" assertion is a specific criteria, not a general concept.

You made a specific claim that was not and is not true. You specifically claimed that the 95% agree. You show that you did not state the truth. "No lie is of the truth" (1 John 2:21c). You overstated your case. Are you suggesting that your specific assertion means nothing at all?

I properly applied your specific 95% claims of agreement consistently by clarifying what it would mean ["word for word" and "jot and tittle for "jot and tittle"]. The article "Jot and Tittle Inspiration" by George Bruns to which you provided a link confirms my clarification. The truth is consistent so applying your specific criteria consistently is a proper test for it. I did not at all spin my wheels by exposing your specific assertion as being not true. You would be spinning your wheels to reject the stating of the truth that exposed your incorrect specific claim.

Alan Dale Gross said:

Jot And Title Inspiration

Click to expand...

In this article to which you provided a link, Pastor George Bruns wrote: "The only question that remains then is this, if God preserved every jot and tittle of His word in what Bible version do we find it. The answer is simple, in the only version that does not take away from the word of God, the King James Version."

Other KJV-only authors make similar claims to those made by pastor George Bruns. Jack Koons asserted: “When the translators of the King James Bible did their translation from the ‘original’ languages into English, they translated each word in the ‘original’ language, into the English word which represented what was said in the ‘original’ language” (What Is so Special about the King James Bible, p. 327). Danny Jack wrote: “How many words of God have to be taken out of your Bible before it is no longer 100% God’s words? Just One? That would be good enough for me” (Superiority of the King James Bible, p. 100). Troy Clark declared: “God wants every word equally preserved” (Perfect Bible, p. 45). Phil Stringer declared: “If you believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, every word matters” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). Charles Keesee declared: “It is rather strange to pretend that we have a perfect Bible, but we don’t have all the words that are supposed to be there” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 32). Charles Keesee wrote: “We need a Bible that has every word that God inspired” (p. 258). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (p. 31).

One can take these very words and assertions made by George Bruns and other KJV-only authors and demonstrate that a consistent application of them would in effect disprove or refute their own exclusive only claims for the KJV.

Do you claim that what Pastor George Bruns wrote is the truth and that you agree with his assertions? Does the KJV preserve every jot and tittle of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? Is it the truth to assert that the KJV does not take away from the word of God which would be asserting that the KJV does not omit any words of God that are in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

Does the KJV actually provide English words for all words in its underlying original-language texts of Scripture as some KJV-only authors clearly suggested or directly asserted? How does the KJV keep intact or preserve by accurate or inerrant translation those original-language words of Scripture for which it gives no English word/rendering? Does the KJV actually have each and every original-language word of Scripture accurately or perfectly translated into English when it has no English rendering for many of them? Did the KJV translators steal some of God’s words by putting them in marginal notes or by omitting or eliminating them altogether? Did the KJV translators regard the inspired original-language words of God that they omitted to be holy and pure? Is God against the 1611 KJV for its stuffing on purpose some of His words into marginal notes? Was the throwing away of some original-language words of God by the KJV translators being completely faithful to their underlying texts? By omitting many words, does the KJV change or reverse what God had already done before 1611?

According to a consistent application of some KJV-only assertions, is the KJV corrupted because of not having an English word for every original language word of Scripture? Does subtracting on purpose from the words of God by not giving any English word for many of them make the KJV translators into “Bible correctors” according to a consistent application of some KJV-only assertions? Should there be any exceptions to God’s commands about not adding to Scripture and not taking away from it? Were the KJV authorized by God to disobey His commands by omitting many words and adding many words? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only assertions, does the KJV in effect undermine the doctrine of inspiration by omitting some original-language words that were inspired by God? By giving no English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture, does the KJV make it impossible for men to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? Does the KJV meet this claimed requirement of God for containing all the words of God? Does the KJV fail the test of containing every word? Do KJV defenders come under the authority of the preserved original-language words of Scripture for which the KJV gives no rendering? Is the KJV to be suggested unintentionally to be an incomplete Bible since it does not have an English word for every original-language word of Scripture? Did KJV-only advocates believe their own assertions truly and consistently if they do not practice them and do not apply them directly and consistently to the KJV?

The KJV does not actually have an English word for every word that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

Alan Dale Gross said:

Ask Jesus about the Scriptures He Used.

Click to expand...

Did the Isaiah scroll that Jesus read or used in Luke 4 agree completely with the Hebrew Masoretic text at Isaiah 61:1-2?

G. K. Beale wrote: “Jesus goes to Nazareth, attends a synagogue service, and is handed the scroll of Isaiah the prophet” (Handbook, p. 57). John Meade and Peter Gurry asserted that “This ‘book’ [Luke 4:17] must be a scroll, not a codex like a modern book, since Luke is careful to say that Jesus unrolls it and rolls it back up” (Scribes, p. 31). The 1855 Union Bible Dictionary also noted: “Thus in Luke 4:17, the phrase ‘opened the book,’ would properly read ‘unrolled the scroll,’ and in verse 20, for ‘closed the book,’ read ‘rolled up the volume,’ or ‘scroll’” (p. 114). At Luke 4:17, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists has the following rendering “unrolling the volume” instead of “opened the book.” Luke 4:17 is translated in 1986 Green’s Literal Translation as follows: “And the roll of Isaiah the prophet was handed to Him. And unrolling the book, He found the place where it is written.” The beginning of Luke 4:20 is literally translated: “And rolling up the roll.” Concerning Luke 4:20, A. T. Robertson observed that Jesus “rolled up the roll and gave it back to the attendant” (Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 57). Richard Longenecker affirmed that Jesus “reads Isaiah 61:1-2, rolls up the scroll, hands it to the attendant” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 54).


KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth, p. 59). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic, p. 31). Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke, pp. 101-102). Richard Longenecker noted: “In Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1, the LXX’s (‘recovering the sight to the blind’) appears, rather than the MT’s reading (‘opening of the prison to those who are bound’” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 46). Richard Longenecker commented: “Despite the quotation’s general Septuagintal character, Luke omits the line about healing the brokenhearted and adds from Isaiah 58:6 the statement ‘to set at liberty those who are bruised’” (Ibid.). Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 61). Michael Heiser suggested: “Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint” (I Dare, p. 124). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting, Part 1, p. 107).

I appreciate your relentless and desperate attempt to convince yourself of what this author began his article below by stateing, "When it comes to the various Bible versions of our modern day, most readers assume that all Bibles are created equal, with perhaps differing degrees of readability."

You should have more information than "most readers" and you do, although you also choose to twist it, and ignore all the basic fundamental and strategic differences between the procedures involved in varying processes of translation, including the underlying Original Text Manuscripts.

Logos1560 said:

Your own "95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees" assertion is a specific criteria, not a general concept.

Click to expand...

Modern Bible Versions, and Westcott and Hort​

October 4, 2009

by Tobin Pederson

"When it comes to the various Bible versions of our modern day, most readers assume that all Bibles are created equal, with perhaps differing degrees of readability. By the same token, most have rid themselves of the “ancient” King James Version and upgraded for a newer model, such as the NIV, or NASB, etc. “When the modern Bible reader is asked if they are familiar with the two Textual Bible Critics, Westcott and Hort, most have never heard of them. They are not aware nor concerned that almost all the modern Bible versions of our day are built upon the Greek Text of Westcott and Hort, commonly called the Westcott-Hort text. In my own NIV Student Bible (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan, Copyright 1986, 1992), there is no mention of Westcott and Hort, but a mere reference to “textual criticism.”

“Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism.”

Though these quotations say nothing of Westcott and Hort, they are hidden behind the words “accepted principles of textual criticism."

Textual Criticism:

"To understand Westcott and Hort, you must first understand textual criticism. This requires us to reach back in history to the days of the apostles, when the New Testament was written in the original Greek language – sometime between 33-100 AD. Since the original books of the Bible do not exist anymore, it becomes necessary to translate the Bible from copies of the original. The word MANUSCRIPTS is used to describe these copies or parchments which still exist. There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. Not one of these manuscripts is exactly the same in Greek content. However the majority of these manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly.

"Translators of the Bible over the years have used these agreeing manuscripts to make what is called the MAJORITY TEXT. Other names for the Majority Text are Traditional Text, Syrian Text, Byzantine Text, and the Common Text. This Majority Text was made from more than five thousand (5000+) manuscripts. It is sometimes called the Textus Receptus. Since 99.9% of these manuscripts agree, we can be comforted knowing that God has preserved His Word among us.

"You could say that “Over five thousand witnesses agree, this New Testament is God’s holy Word”. Not only do we have 5000+ manuscripts which are nearly identical, but the Lord Himself Promises us through His Word to Preserve His Scriptures for the sake of mankind. In Matthew 24:35 Jesus said, “Heaven and Earth shall pass away but My Words shall Not Pass Away.” Isaiah 40:8 says, “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall Stand Forever.”

"See also Is. 30:8, 59:21, I Pet 1:23. The point here is simple. God has Promised to Preserve His Word among us, and God always keeps His Promises! Likewise we dare never put confidence in man. “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” Ps. 118:8. Putting our confidence in God and not man, it seems apparent our Lord has Kept His Promise and that His Word is Faithfully Preserved in over 5000 witnesses!

"Now we have said that 99.9% of those 5000+ manuscripts agree with each other almost perfectly, but what about the other .1%??? These are commonly called the MINORITY TEXTS, but they are also known to many as the corrupted manuscripts. For much unlike the 5000+, these five manuscripts are radically different. They do not even agree with each other.

"Their names are as follows:
Codex Vatican (B)
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
Codex Alexandrian (A)
Codex Ephraemi (C)
Codex Bezae (D)

"If we are to understand the foundation of the NIV, it is critical to understand that the NIV is translated from these five manuscripts above which do not agree with one another.

"But what does this mean and is it important? Take, for example, five men who are eye witnesses to a crime. In the court room they tell it to the judge as it is, yet when the judge hears each of their stories, the witnesses do not agree. The judge then listens to the other side which holds over 5000 witnesses. These 5000 agree perfectly as to what happened.

"So here is the dilemma when it comes to the “witness” of the Greek manuscripts. Do we listen to the 5000+ witnesses, or do we listen to the 5? Which group do you think would be more trustworthy?

"At this point we have entered the realm of “textual criticism”. A textual critic is one who picks and chooses what part of whose story they will believe to be true. They make themselves the judge. For example, the witness “Codex Vatican B” (one of the five), a Greek manuscript of the New Testament, testifies that the last 12 verses of Mark do not exist. In other words, the manuscript “Codex Vatican B” does not contain Mark 16:9-20. Now take your Bibles and look at Mark 16:9-20. If you have a King James Bible you see it is about the resurrected Christ,…quite an important part of Scripture. The King James men used the Majority text (5000+) and simply translated it as is. But if you have a NIV Bible, between verses 8 and 9 there is a line and a large space along with this caption in brackets:

"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20]

"After this bracket in the NIV they then list verses 9-20 (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan, Copyright 1986, 1992, pg 1104).

"For the reader of the NIV this note in brackets must at least cause doubt to enter one’s mind as to the authenticity of these verses. They might argue, “My Bible says the “earliest” manuscripts do not have this verse!” But does this reader know of the thousands of other manuscripts which do contain this verse? The one who writes “the earliest manuscripts…” is the man we call a textual critic. He picks and chooses what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t, based upon his education, beliefs, and ideals. His method of picking and choosing which verses belong and which verses don’t, is called the eclectic method. The Westcott-Hort text is an eclectic text. They are the judges as to what belongs in the Bible and what does not.

"The whole problem with textual criticism is that man becomes the judge of what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t. A textual critic sets himself up as judge over God’s Word, when no man has such a right. The Scriptures are not to be privately interpreted. The Bible teaches “No Scripture is of private interpretation”. No mere mortal dare add to, or subtract from God’s Word (the last chapter in Revelation teaches this). Textual criticism is flawed because man’s judgment is by nature flawed with bias. It is comparable to a judge with a criminal past, making a judgment based upon the witness of five liars, and at the same time ignoring the unified witness of over 5000 men. Can his verdict be true? We know the verdict and outcome before the trial is over. So our modern Bibles today have been translated by men who make themselves judges. Instead of simply translating what the majority of witnesses agree to, they translate from their own fancy, the false witness of the five. In like manner, if a scientist is also an evolutionist and atheist, do we need to hear his science before we know his verdict? Assuredly his verdict will be against the six literal days of creation."

Logos1560 said:

Your belief in your interpretation does not make it true and scriptural.

Click to expand...

But yours does? Of course, if you have Authority over the Word of God.

Which, of course, you don't.

I don't know if you know that or not.

It seems to be a thing you claim and will fight tooth and nail to maintain.

Logos1560 said:

This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language.

Click to expand...

It does not "assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language", because there is no need for a "giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God", since the Words of Scripture themselves are Inspired by God.

As much as you may try, you are not going to separate the Anointing, Unction from on High, and the Inspiration Inherent in and Contained in God's Words.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 states; "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, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Alan Dale Gross said:

"Whatever inspired Scripture is, Timothy had it as a child."

Click to expand...

Alan Dale Gross said:

"Inspiration is inextricably mingled with Scripture."

Click to expand...

Alan Dale Gross said:

"If it is not Given by Inspiration, it is not Scripture."

Click to expand...

Alan Dale Gross said:

"Scripture knows of no such thing as an "uninspired Holy Bible."

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of post-NT Bible translations is by inspiration.

Click to expand...

Nothing teaches that "the process or method for the making of post-NT Bible translations is by inspiration", except maybe your KJV-Only friends you are so infatuated with, because God's Words are Always Inspired that make up His Holy Scriptures.

Logos1560 said:

This verse does not say that the breath of God is put on all Scripture translations or that God breathed on or into them.

Click to expand...

You can't divorce God's Breath, from being on the Words that Go Forth from God's Mouth since souls are to live by every Word that Proceeds Out of the Mouth of God.

Alan Dale Gross said:

Who said anything about the King James Version "has 95% extant manuscript support"?

Click to expand...

I wasn't taking about the King James Version as opposed to any other Faithfully Translated 'Version', by Comparison to and from the Majority of Manuscript Evidence.

Alan Dale Gross said:

You are truly Eat Up with your distain for anything having to do with the King James Bible.

Click to expand...

You assumed and brought up the King James Version, because you can never seem to resist bashing it, even when it's not specifically being talked about.

Logos1560 said:

Did the Isaiah scroll that Jesus read or used in Luke 4 agree completely with the Hebrew Masoretic text at Isaiah 61:1-2?

Click to expand...

I don't know if you know this either, but you're asking if I have access to "the Isaiah scroll Jesus read or used in Luke 4."

This can only mean one of two things.

You believe I have access to the scroll Jesus read in Luke 4, or you consider our translation of Luke 4 to be indentical, Univocally, to the actual scroll Jesus was reading from.

Since I happen to not have the former, I'm going to go with the later. To my death.

Jesus reading from Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18;
"The Spirit of the Lord is Upon Me,
because He hath Anointed Me to Preach the Gospel to the poor;
He hath Sent Me to Heal the brokenhearted,
to Preach Deliverance to the captives,
and Recovering of sight to the blind,
to Set at Liberty them that are bruised,

19; "To Preach the Acceptable Year of the Lord."

Isaiah 61:1,2 from the King James Bible;
1; "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is Upon Me;
because the LORD hath Anointed Me to Preach Good Tidings unto the meek;
He hath Sent Me to Bind Up the brokenhearted,
to Proclaim Liberty to the captives,
and the Opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2; "To Proclaim the Acceptable Year of the LORD,
and the Day of Vengeance of our God;
to Comfort all that mourn;"

Isaiah 61:1,2 from the Masoretic Text:
"The Spirit of the Lord God is Upon Me;
Because the LORD hath Anointed Me To bring Good Tidings unto the humble;
He hath Sent Me to Bind up the broken-hearted,
To Proclaim Liberty to the captives,
And the Opening of the eyes to them that are bound;

2 "To Proclaim the Year of the LORD’S Good Pleasure,
And the Day of Vengeance of our God;
To Comfort all that mourn;..."

Our New Testament Passage in Luke 4 doesn't 'Specifically' "agree completely" with our Isaiah 61 passage, in the King James Version, to the exact precise Letter of the Law, but you need to realize that they 'Specifically' "agree completely" to the Spirit of the Law, in other words, for 'God's Purposes'.

One of the most important differences that is in the Translation is that there a comma after;
"To Proclaim the Acceptable Year of the LORD," <right there, in Isaiah 61:2,
which represents the entire Time from when Jesus was reading
that He was "To Proclaim the Acceptable Year of the LORD,"
the New Testament Gospel Era of Salvation,
until the End of the World "and the Day of Vengeance of our God",
when Jesus Returns to Separate the goats from the sheep.

Logos1560 said:

”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close”

Click to expand...

Is this the first time that you have ever experienced reading a Old Testament passage quoted in the New Testament.

There are hundreds of them and they set the standard criteria for what God Views as Acceptable Inspired Scripture Variants. Please learn that. Inspiration doesn't always follow in the exact same set of tracks.

"The New Testament writers included approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations, and if one includes indirect or partial quotations, the number jumps to more than 1,000 (referring to all OT books except Obadiah) It is to be noted that the whole New Testament contains not even one explicit citation of any of the Old Testament Apocrypha which are considered as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This omission can scarcely be viewed as accidental.

"It is clear that the writers of the New Testament were concerned with demonstrating the continuity between the Old Testament Scriptures and the faith they proclaimed. They were convinced that in Jesus the Old Testament Promises had been Fulfilled. We will examine the New Testament Scriptures to see how these verses / passages are utilized": HERE.


Are you saying that you believe that there is some difference to God involved regarding any of the following?

Logos1560 said:

the scroll of Isaiah the prophet

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

This ‘book’ [Luke 4:17] must be a scroll

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

Jesus unrolls it and rolls it back up

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

‘opened the book,’

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

‘unrolled the scroll,’

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

‘closed the book,’

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

‘rolled up the volume,’ or ‘scroll’

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

“unrolling the volume”

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

“opened the book.”

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

the roll of Isaiah the prophet

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

unrolling the book

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

rolling up the roll.

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

Jesus “rolled up the roll

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

rolls up the scroll

Click to expand...

If so, what is it that makes a difference to God, in any of these wordings?

Logos1560 said:

Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting, Part 1, p. 107).

Click to expand...

This passagebelow is somehow associated with a 'key salvific' quality of "having the power, intention, or design to save, redeem, or bring about salvation", or is a Messianic passage? That's right. Maybe instead of all these theories about where it came from, Jesus could have just decided to throw that in, Himself, to give as part of His Message He was Teaching from the rest of the passage in Isaiah 61 that He was The Messiah. Or not, but my guess is at least as good as theirs.

Logos1560 said:

‘recovering the sight to the blind’

Click to expand...

Logos1560 said:

The poster in his title and in the opening post referred to the Bible translation that he holds in his hands [which would be the KJV] as inspired.

Click to expand...

I purposely did not specifically refer to the King James Bible, because the things I mentioned about Inspiration apply to many, many other versions of the Word of God.

That's why, when you wrote;

Logos1560 said:

You are reading "the KJV" or Bible translations into the term "Scripture" at 2 Timothy 3:16.

Click to expand...

I replied;

Alan Dale Gross said:

If you want to talk about the King James Version, start a new thread.

Then, I will.

New Thread: The King James Translators intended to make the very good Translations Better.

Click to expand...

However, since you are dependent in your Godless vendetta against defenders of the King James Version with your relentless bashing of it, so you can bully the KJV-Only proponents, you have to be baited into demanding that not only was I speaking of the King James Version, but from that you conclude (as you do with all King James Readers who definitely consider it Holy and Sacred and to be "God's Word", if anything is) that makes the poster KJV-Only.

You win. Except that you are wrong. And the way you go about winning your KJV-Only arguments against those who despise most all, if not all, of the KJV-Only tenants HAS BEEN EXPOSED.

You just make it up and label and smear people of God willy-nilly, because you've been given that Demon-inspired calling in life. And although you valiantly attempt, by hook or crook, to place the Modern = "Take Away From" versions on the same level univocally as the King James Version, for example, when everyone knows they can't have two different Translation Procedures and Philosophies and wind up with two identical results, univocally, there is one thing I can say positive about the Modern = "Take Away From" versions. The various passages of God's Word that they capriciously omit ARE INSPIRERED.

Logos1560 said:

Claiming that a Bible translation [the KJV] is given by inspiration of God would constitute KJV-only reasoning.

Click to expand...

I don't know, man. You just have unbelief in Divine Inspiration and Divine Preservation as a given.

Many are the versions of 'Scripture' that are Inspired by God, exactly the way God Himself Says they are.

Logos1560 said:

God tells us "all scripture" are, when Paul says, in 2 Timpthy 3:16; "All scripture is Given by Inspiration of God".

Click to expand...

"All scripture is Given by Inspiration of God".

Mike B said:

And I was supposed to know this....HOW?

Click to expand...

You would have had to be called to smear all King James users and defenders as being KJV-Only Ruckmanite Quacks.

And that calling would have not been from God, however.

Logos1560 has never answered directly whether he is paid for what he does, but that might explain a lot.

Mike B said:

have only
been a member here for almost three months....I'm not at that level yet to make such presumptions.

Click to expand...

You're sharp to have nailed this guy and shot him down in a flame of glory.

Far from presumptuous and very close to perspicacious.

Way to go, Brother.

This guy is hard to pin down, because he's genuinely devious in his approach and his 'thing' about the Post KJV 1611 Translations all being of equal quality univocally, which would include the modern versions, is ludicrous and deserving to be called Quackery more than anything any KJV-Only Quack has dreamed up.

As this says below; "The King James Version (KJV) and the Westcott-Hort Greek text represent two fundamentally different underlying source text traditions and historical translation philosophies for the English Bible.

Google AI that everyone should already know;
"The King James Version (KJV) and the Westcott-Hort Greek text represent two fundamentally different underlying source text traditions and historical translation philosophies for the English Bible. [1, 2]

Underlying Greek Text Sources

King James Version (1611): Based on the Textus Receptus (Received Text), a compilation of the Byzantine text-type assembled by humanist scholars like Erasmus, Stephanus, and Theodore Beza during the 16th and 17th centuries. It relies primarily on a majority consensus of late-medieval Greek manuscripts (9th to 15th centuries).

---

Westcott and Hort (1881): Produced by 19th-century Cambridge scholars Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (The New Testament in the Original Greek). They rejected the Textus Receptus in favor of the Alexandrian text-type, prioritizing older 4th-century uncial manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Translation and Editorial Methodology

• • KJV Committee Process: Commissioned by King James I and executed by roughly 47 scholars split into six distinct working groups. They translated collaboratively using a committee-based consensus style, heavily influenced by the earlier Tyndale Bible and the Bishop's Bible, aiming for a majestic, uniform liturgical cadence in early modern English.
  • Westcott & Hort Critical Methodology: Applied rigorous 19th-century textual criticism. They evaluated variant readings using "internal evidence" (what an author was most likely to write) and "genealogical evidence" (grouping manuscript families to trace 'corruptions'). They argued that the Byzantine text was a later, secondary conflation of earlier readings. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Logos1560 said:

Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting, Part 1, p. 107).

Click to expand...

As you can see from the Affected Teaching below, the omission of "to Heal the brokenhearted" actually is a "Key Salvific and Messianic" passage that has been omitted in modern versions.

Line of Preserved Versions;
Luke 4:18;
(KJV) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;
he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(1611 KJV) The Spirit of the Lord is vpon mee, because hee hath anointed mee, to preach the Gospel to the poore,
he hath sent mee to heale the broken hearted, to preach deliuerance to the captiues, and recouering of sight to the blinde,
to set at libertie them that are bruised,
(1587 Geneva Bible) The Spirit of the Lorde is vpon mee, because he hath anoynted me, that I should preach the Gospel to the poore: he hath sent mee, that I should heale the broken hearted, that I should preach deliuerance to the captiues,
and recouering of sight to the blinde, that I should set at libertie them that are bruised:
(1526 Tyndale) The sprete of the lorde vpon me because he hath annoynted me: to preache ye gospell to ye poore
he hath sent me: and to heale the broken harted: to preache delyverauce to the captive and sight to the blinde
and frely to set at lyberte them that are brused

Versions which Take Away this portion of the verse above;
(CSB) The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed,
(NIV) "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,
(NASV) THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,
(THE MESSAGE) God's Spirit is on me; he's chosen me to preach the Message of good news to the poor,
Sent me to announce pardon to prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, To set the burdened and battered free,
(AMP) The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon Me, because He has anointed Me [the Anointed One, the Messiah] to preach the good news (the Gospel) to the poor; He has sent Me to announce release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to send forth as delivered those who are oppressed [who are downtrodden, bruised, crushed, and broken down by calamity],
(NLT) “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free,
(ESV) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
(CEV) "The Lord's Spirit has come to me, because he has chosen me to tell the good news to the poor.
The Lord has sent me to announce freedom for prisoners, to give sight to the blind, to free everyone who suffers,
(NCV) "The Lord has put his Spirit in me, because he appointed me to tell the Good News to the poor.
He has sent me to tell the captives they are free and to tell the blind that they can see again. — Isaiah 61:1
God sent me to free those who have been treated unfairly — Isaiah 58:6
(1901 ASV) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor:
He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised,
(HCSB) The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim freedom to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed,
(RSV) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
(NAB-Roman Catholic) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witness) “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor,
he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release,

Textus Receptus - Traditional Text pneuma kuriou ep eme ou eneken ecrisen me euaggelizesqai ptwcoiV apestalken me iasasqai touV suntetrimmenouV thn kardian khruxai aicmalwtoiV ajesin kai tujloiV anableyin aposteilai teqrausmenouV en ajesei

Hort-Westcott - Critical Text pneuma kuriou ep eme ou eineken ecrisen me euaggelisasqai ptwcoiV apestalken me khruxai aicmalwtoiV ajesin kai tujloiV anableyin aposteilai teqrausmenouV en ajesei

Altered Manuscripts This verse is corrupted in the following Manuscripts:
Aleph 01 - Sinaiticus - Nineteenth Century Counterfeit
B 03 - Vaticanus - Fourth century
D 05 - Bezae Cantabrigiensis - Fifth century
L 019 - Seventh century
33 (Miniscule) - Ninth Century
XI 040 - Sixth century

Manuscripts which agree with the Textus Receptus for this verse;
Byzantine Text (450-1450 A.D.)
A 02 - Alexandrinus - Fifth century
K 017 - Ninth centuryGamma
036 - Ninth or Tenth century
Delta 037 - Ninth century
Theta 038 - Ninth century


Affected Teaching (Isa 61:1 KJV) "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me;
because the LORD hath Anointed Me to Preach Good Tidings unto the meek;
He hath Sent Me to Bind up the brokenhearted,
to Proclaim Liberty to the captives,
and the Opening of the prison to them that are bound;" Luke 4:18 is a quote of Isaiah 61:1.

"The Lord Jesus Christ was in the Synagogue on the Sabbath day and He was handed the scroll of Isaiah. He read Isaiah 61 which was the description of His own ministry. In Isaiah 61:1 the phrase “bind up the brokenhearted” carries with it the meaning of “to wrap firmly or gird about those who are destroyed or broken.” It carries with it the idea that the Messiah will bring salvation to those who are downtrodden. That can be applied to every human being in this world as depression runs high and people can put on a happy exterior but inside they may be crushed.

"Luke 4:18 carries the same meaning that Christ is going to heal or make whole those who are broken or shattered in heart. He is not speaking of a physical sickness but a depressed spirit can lead to physical sickness instead what is in view here is the healing of salvation. Christ makes us whole through salvation. (John 5:14-16 KJV);

"Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him,
Behold, thou art made Whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

{15} "The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him Whole.

{16} "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay Him,
because He had Done these things on the Sabbath Day."

"This is the whole essence of what is in view in Isaiah 61:1-3 and Luke 4:18.

"Why this section was omitted in the modern versions is a mystery.

"Apparently the Gnostic mutilators did not think that Christ could Heal the brokenhearted through salvation.

"They did not think of Him as Deity, so any way they could put a doubt on His Ministry they would.

"JESUS was the Complete Fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1."

Alan Dale Gross said:

But yours does? Of course, if you have Authority over the Word of God.

Which, of course, you don't.

Click to expand...

You bear false witness as I nowhere claim or suggest that I supposedly have authority over the Word of God.