Inspired in the originals?

Because God is incapable of error. God was the author of the originals.</font>[/QUOTE]1. Please prove that statement from the Bible.
2. He was also the PRESERVER of his word.

Nice try, except that scripture TEACHES that the original creation was very good, but then got mucked up. It does NOT teach the same about God's word!!!

It is the difference between God's actions and God's providence.</font>[/QUOTE]No, it is not! Your example of Jacob has God ALLOWING certain things in order to achieve his purpose. God did not CAUSE Jacob to lie or sin or cheat, he ALLOWED it. What you are implying is that God ALLOWED his word to be preserved, but did not actually do so himself. Please prove this idea from the Bible.

You could say the same about the originals.

No, I don't. The preceeding manuscripts can perish as much as the originals did.

 

So, according to the link that you supplied (see the quote below), you believe that the Scriptures were lost during the dark ages and then resurrected during the era of the Protestant Reformation?

Oh, my! Do you realize you have just made up a supernatural event to conform to your view of preservation? This is the canonization of words argument that we’re beginning to see more and more of from the KJVO crowd. Why don’t we stick with what the Bible says rather that make up fanciful myths that have no basis in reality?

I’ve asked this several times now and failed to get a response: could someone please point me to a perfectly preserved Greek manuscript that contains no errors of any kind? Please identify the document and explain how you know it is an exact replica of the original autographs.

Andy

 

Nice try, except that scripture TEACHES that the original creation was very good, but then got mucked up. It does NOT teach the same about God's word!!! </font>[/QUOTE]1. if God's Word can't be corrupted, then KJBOs shd perhaps just sit down n be quiet.

2. or wld u correct the KJB at this place:
2 Corinthians 2
17 For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

NIV: 2 Corinthians 2
17Unlike so many, we do not PEDDLE the word of God FOR PROFIT. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.

 

I never said we didn't have a perfect (complete and faithful) Bible. I say that we do not have perfect wording. The message, not the words, is the Word of God. If this were not true then no translation could ever qualify as the Word of God without establishing direct, divine inspiration. This proposition can not be established by any means for the KJV.

God is perfect therefore that which He creates is perfect. God created a perfect world. Man's sin corrupted it. Yet according to Romans 1 it reflects God perfectly (completely) so that no one has an excuse for not seeking Him for salvation.

Not without your straw man. You could perfectly (completely and accurately) represent the message of my words without using my words. The same goes for the originals. The message of the originals can be perfectly communicated without the original words. We simply need what we in fact have, ample evidence of what the message was.

Nothing I have said or believe contradicts this verse. KJVOnlyism however limits the Word that God so highly esteems to the word choices of Anglican translators who acknowledge their imperfection.

 

no, to the contrary, Scriptures do view themselves as PERFECT, FLAWLESS, even at inception:

Ps 12
6 And the words of the LORD are flawless,
like silver refined in a furnace of clay,
purified seven times.

notice that they ARE flawless--not "will be" or "will someday in Jacobean England be."

guess who wrote this Psalm. David in composing God's Word had the autographs--n under inspiration he attributed perfection to them.

 

Which (if any) of the following "translations" are inspired and how do you know they are?

AND/OR

Which (if any) of the following translations are NOT inspired and how do you know that they are not?

The Septuagint?
The Old Itala?
The Vulgate?
The Wycliff?
The Tyndale?
The Geneva?
The Douay-Rheims?
The 1611KJV (with Apocrypha)?
The 1769KJV (without Apocrypha)?
The New World Translation?
The New International Version?
The Living Letters?

HankD

 

Lacy, you still haven't answered my question.
A yes or no are among the options.

I'll narrow it down to 1 Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bible of our Dissenter, Baptist, Puritan (and sometime martyred by The Church of Rome and England) forefathers.

Are the English words of the Geneva Bible inspired?

HankD

 

I had written:

This verse says it is talking about Scripture. Prophecies that were spoken but never written were from God, but by definition they are not "Scripture."

Bartholomew said:

Of course your second sentence is true, but your first is not. The passage is talking about the PROPHECIES that are in the scripture - NOT scripture in general.

All "Prophecies of Scripture" are Scripture, or hadn't you noticed?

2 Tim. 3:16 says that "all Scripture is God-breathed." Not just the prophecies, but the whole package. 2 Pet. 1:20 tells us a little something more about what that means: men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

I submit to you that the analogical argument is perfectly valid: Prophetic scripture is God-breathed and written by men moved by the Holy Spirit; similarly, the Pentateuch, wisdom literature, Gospels, epistles, etc. are God-breathed and written by men moved by the Holy Spirit.

Your argument, on the other hand, is an argument from ignorance. Essentially you are saying that since Peter affirms that prophetic Scripture comes from men moved by the Holy Spirit but is silent on the other genres, therefore he is specifically excluding them. Sorry, doesn't wash.

Also, it is talking about what they SPOKE, NOT what they WROTE.

I see . . . so it was inspired when it was spoken, but not when they wrote it down? Give me a break.

"Spoken" and "written" are frequently synonymous when Scripture is their object. See: Matt. 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 3:3, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 22:31, 24:15, 27:9, 27:35; Mark 13:14; Luke 24:25; Acts 2;16, 3:21, 3:24, 13:40, 28:25; 2 Pet. 3:2.

Was King Solomon a prophet? He wrote some of the OT. Was Mark a prophet? Or Luke? Is their work inspired?

All Scripture is inspired, remember?

No, it is talking about SPEAKING; not "setting down".

It is talking about "prophecy of Scripture," which as I said before (and you agreed), is by definition[/i[ set down in writing.

The Bible does NOT say that only originals are inspired.

The Bible also does NOT say that the originals were not inscribed by drag queens wearing skimpy cheerleader outfits, but I don't make the assumption that they were into an article of faith, do you?

There is only one way for the KJV-onlyists to win this argument: show a verse that says what 2 Peter 1:20-21 says about the prophets, only about the translators and copyists instead.

Unless and until you can cough up that verse, your entire argument rests upon sophistry and wishful thinking.