Preserved is not same as inspired!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Bible Doctrine of Preservation
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
Would you agree with me then that one can see the word of the Lord in the various Greek texts, and that any translations made off and based upon any of them done rightly are still valid, just that some superior and preferred over others!
37818
Well-Known Member
You argued.
So you are claiming the handed down word ceased being "inspired." If God's word remains God breathed then it is preserved.
God preserved Hos words to us for today in all of the manuscripts, lectionaries, Ecf quotes, variants, but NONE of them being copes wereinspired!
37818
Well-Known Member
The readers, the transitions and the mss variants are not inerrant.
Yes.
I can't answer this as written. It is a huge generalization. What is a "done rightly" translation? How do we judge what a "superior" translation is? If a translation is "preferred over others," then why and by who?
Perhaps the term inspiration should be used for how the Scriptures were given to the prophets and apostles so that it is not the term for the later process of copying or for the even later process of translating after the completion of the giving of the NT.
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). Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). 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?
Basically, can we read and study with confidence various translations such as Kjv, Nkjv, Nas, Esv as while one may prefer one to others, all would still be valid word of the lord to us in English?
This doesn't answer what I wrote.
I was meaning that if a translation was based off say the TR, or the Bzt, or the Critical Greek text, would still be valid, but if one preferred a particular textual greek text that was used, would be preferred English translation
Again, this is what I wrote:
What is a "done rightly" translation? How do we judge what a "superior" translation is? If a translation is "preferred over others," then why and by who?
Can you answer these according to the OP, which is about preservation?
I would see a rightly done translation as one who was faithful to the source texts used to base it upon, as say the JW translation would not for that criteria, and would say if both Nkjv and Nas are true to what their source texts stated, then one could prefer one over other due to how they view the respective Greek texts as being accurate!
37818
Well-Known Member
Were varants are involved how and by what criteria does anyone identify the original source reading that God is preserving,?
We do not have a perfect text. do we?
37818
Well-Known Member
The bigger problem is, we do not have any perfect interpreters to interpret what perfect text that has been handling down to us.
How do you know that? Did you learn that from God, the scriptures, or a man?
And I could easily ask: Is not God powerful enough to preserve His word, even in a translation by giving the NASB translators understanding, wisdom, and knowledge?
He overseen the Nas and esv and Nkjv just as much as he did the Kjv 1611!
We do not need to have the prefect text in order tio have an infallible one!
37818
Well-Known Member
Really?
- Status