Does a Multitude of Modern English Bible Versions Promote a Violation of 1 Cor 1:10

[Logos1560]

The inspiration of the written words comes from God through chosen men.

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).

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that inspiration is the term for the process of the copying of the Scriptures, the process of post-NT translating of the Scriptures, or the process of the printing of the Scriptures.

 

[Logos1560]

Why does this passage not settle the matter once and for all?

Because all passages need to be understood and interpreted according to the harmony of Scripture and in agreement with what other related passages teach. Several KJV-only authors have asserted that 2 Peter 1:21 is the parallel passage to 2 Timothy 3:16 concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures. You seem to seek to dismiss what the parallel passage would teach.

Stephen Westcott’s modern-spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe New Testament 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.”

 

[canadyjd]

What is the number one selling Bible translation?

4 Ministry Truths From the Bestselling Bible Translations List
1 New International Version
2 New Living Translation
3 English Standard Version
4 King James Version
5 Christian Standard Bible

What is the best-selling version of the Bible?

The New International Version

The New International Version remains the best-selling translation. Though we don't have market share data, we anecdotally surmise that the NIV is losing market share to the next three translations (ESV, NLT, CSB).Jan 2, 2023

Is NIV the most popular Bible?


The NIV is the only English version since the KJV that has come close to becoming the “standard” English version. Yet today, the Bible translation landscape is changing. While the NIV remains the best-selling and most popular English version in the world today, its dominance has waned.
logos.com

If God can give one the Holy Spirit he can give one his words. He gives both. If he doesn't we have been duped. The words he gives explains his giving his Holy Spirit to us (he is invisible) and the Holy Spirit teaches us his words. Things God gives are as perfect as he is.

Ok, just saying that the “best selling” Bible in 2022 might not necessarily the “most used” Bible among Christians. I know Christians that have kept their same bibles for decades, in some cases generations. I really thought the KJV was most used in the US.

Please speak plainly. What is your solution to the problem you have identified in the OP?

peace to you

 

[JD731]

One only has to read the numerous passages of OT Scripture that have been quoted in the NT to see the varied ways the authors translated from one language to another.

A person has to turn a blind eye when reading the Bible if they don’t see that OT quotes don’t always match up exactly in the NT.

These differences are not the “same” noted in 1 Corinthians.

Rob

Rob, I would like to make this point . I have already touched on it briefly. The scriptures is the word and are the words of God. We do not have to guess about that. I have shown verses from Jesus Christ, himself God, but submitted to the Father in human form, that declare that he does not speak his own words. All the words he speaks, he says, are given to him by the Father. One could say then that the scriptures are the words of God and of no one else. I pointed out that the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which Jesus calls his testimony was given him of the Father. I am going to quote some of this because it is important.

Re 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Re 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Re 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:

God the Father gave the testimony of Jesus Christ to him.

Joh 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

This brings me to conclude that God the Father is the only one who has literary license to alter the words of a prophecy made in the OT and quoted in the NT. He did some of that. It is his word in both testaments. But the voice of his words is Jesus Christ. In this capacity he is called "the word of the LORD" in the OT and "the word of the Lord" in the NT. Consider this next quote as representative of how this title is presented in the KJV.

Ac 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

He is speaking of the words he heard Jesus speak and now we know Jesus got these words from God the Father. They were spoken in Hebrew and written in Greek.

The word of the Lord appears in 13 verses in the NT. Here is a commendation for some who glorified him, remembering that our Lord Jesus will not give his glory to another.

2Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

A study of this teaches us that one must not separate the word of the Lord from the word of God.

Translations into languages is the prerogative of God who gave the word. There is nowhere in the scriptures that God has charged the church to translate his word into another language, although it has been done by his design. It is very presumptuous for anyone to think they have literary license to present the word of God any way they please. And to paraphrase the God of heaven is criminal when his very words are spirit and life.

Read this in the context of the word of God in Psa 19:

13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Consider these things. If God sanctions a translation into a language, there is no reason to have two translations.

 

[JD731]

I do not think you understood my point (my fault, I probably did not state it well).

Paul wrote to a specific church. But his writing is Scripture and it applies to every church.

BUT it does not apply to some governing organization existing over churches.

If having multiple translations is a source of division in your church then it needs to be examined - either educate your congregation about the nature of translations or choose one to use in the service.

If having multiple translations does not cause divisions in your church (it does not in mine) then there is no division to address.

I think I did understand your point. The very same letters from the very same man instructs the church today as in AD 54 when Paul wrote this first letter to the Corinthian church. The authority of God was questioned in this church and members were confused. I doubt they would have admitted they were confused if you had a chance to ask them. But the Great apostle Paul wrote this letter to correct the problem with the counsel of God. God has given no additional counsel apart from the apostles and elders counsels they wrote in this book. Paul is as much our authority today through his letters as he was for the Corinthians when these problems creep in. There is no other counsel from God.

On another point, concerning your last sentence, your congregation is not speaking the same thing by your own admission and it does not seem to bother you.

 

[JonC]

I think I did understand your point. The very same letters from the very same man instructs the church today as in AD 54 when Paul wrote this first letter to the Corinthian church. The authority of God was questioned in this church and members were confused. I doubt they would have admitted they were confused if you had a chance to ask them. But the Great apostle Paul wrote this letter to correct the problem with the counsel of God. God has given no additional counsel apart from the apostles and elders counsels they wrote in this book. Paul is as much our authority today through his letters as he was for the Corinthians when these problems creep in. There is no other counsel from God.

On another point, concerning your last sentence, your congregation is not speaking the same thing by your own admission and it does not seem to bother you.

Yes, that was my point. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same line (not talking past one another). Paul was instructing a church, and this is applicable to churches.

Now, to your second point - how in earth do you get that my congregation was not speaking the same thing? That is far from the truth and I am interested in how you made that determination.

Does it bother me that my congregation uses several translations? No. I am pleased that they do. Before seminary I was studying ancient texts (literature) so I was already familiar with the need to examine several translations along with the source text. Even the crazy 1970's translations were not without value.

What it means is that my congregation takes God's Word seriously. I would be concerned if they believed a single English translation were the only true Word of God (that would be enough for me to leave the church).

 

[canadyjd]

Jesus spoke Kone Greek almost exclusively.

The Words He received from His Father must also have been Kone Greek.

The OT is Biblical Hebrew almost exclusively.

Both of these languages are now “dead”, they are no longer spoken as they were spoken at that time.Therefore the passages you are quoting concerning not adding or taking away these words are referring to these ancient, and now dead, languages.

What is your solution to the problem you have identified?

peace to you

 

[JD731]

Jesus spoke Kone Greek almost exclusively.

The Words He received from His Father must also have been Kone Greek.

The OT is Biblical Hebrew almost exclusively.

Both of these languages are now “dead”, they are no longer spoken as they were spoken at that time.Therefore the passages you are quoting concerning not adding or taking away these words are referring to these ancient, and now dead, languages.

What is your solution to the problem you have identified?

peace to you

The solution to the problem, canadyjd, is to believe the words that God gave to us from heaven rather than following the philosophies of modern men. Trusting in the ability of God to preserve his words in translation has been replaced with the idea that scholarly men and institutions are charged to do it in the strangest of ways, by multiplied translations in the same language. These men will have us believe that one who will know sound doctrine must gather their translations together and compare their words to get the mind of God. What words are best is a matter of subjective reasoning of the reader, they say. They readily admit the words in their translations are not from God but themselves but they can be trusted because of their great intellect and abilities and scholarship.

1 Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

God just does not think like we do. We must latch on to the idea that we must think like he does to know his mind. In 1 Cor 2, he says to us who has his Spirit that we have been given the mind of Christ, who has the mind of God.

2 Cor16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

That is my best answer, but the following things you said about the language of the Jews is an error and reason and logic from the scriptures will teach us about the language Jesus spoke to the Jews in.

 

[JD731]

Yes, that was my point. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same line (not talking past one another). Paul was instructing a church, and this is applicable to churches.

Now, to your second point - how in earth do you get that my congregation was not speaking the same thing? That is far from the truth and I am interested in how you made that determination.

Does it bother me that my congregation uses several translations? No. I am pleased that they do. Before seminary I was studying ancient texts (literature) so I was already familiar with the need to examine several translations along with the source text. Even the crazy 1970's translations were not without value.

What it means is that my congregation takes God's Word seriously. I would be concerned if they believed a single English translation were the only true Word of God (that would be enough for me to leave the church).

If you were to take the time and effort to learn the New Testament Greek language fluently and purchased a copy of the New Testament in the Byzantine texts, would you then settle for the idea that you have the inspired word of God?

 

[JonC]

If you were to take the time and effort to learn the New Testament Greek language fluently and purchased a copy of the New Testament in the Byzantine texts, would you then settle for the idea that you have the inspired word of God?

I already know that I have the inspired Word of God. I have His inspired Word in several translations (the KJV, ESV, NASB, HCS).

 

[canadyjd]

The solution to the problem, canadyjd, is to believe the words that God gave to us from heaven rather than following the philosophies of modern men. Trusting in the ability of God to preserve his words in translation has been replaced with the idea that scholarly men and institutions are charged to do it in the strangest of ways, by multiplied translations in the same language. These men will have us believe that one who will know sound doctrine must gather their translations together and compare their words to get the mind of God. What words are best is a matter of subjective reasoning of the reader, they say. They readily admit the words in their translations are not from God but themselves but they can be trusted because of their great intellect and abilities and scholarship.

1 Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

God just does not think like we do. We must latch on to the idea that we must think like he does to know his mind. In 1 Cor 2, he says to us who has his Spirit that we have been given the mind of Christ, who has the mind of God.

2 Cor16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

That is my best answer, but the following things you said about the language of the Jews is an error and reason and logic from the scriptures will teach us about the language Jesus spoke to the Jews in.

I’m certain every man and woman that has dedicated their lives to understanding God’s words in the original languages and then translating those words into modern languages believe they are God’s words given from heaven.

The problem, as you stated, is having multiple translations in the same language. Is that your point?

Are you saying English speaking people should only have one translation so everyone will be of the same mind?

If yes, are you saying the KJV is the only translation English speaking people should have, for the sake of unity within the church?

peace to you

 

[Logos1560]

The solution to the problem, canadyjd, is to believe the words that God gave to us from heaven rather than following the philosophies of modern men.

You fail to show that you believe the actual original-language words of Scripture that God directly gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles rather than following a human, non-scriptural philosophy of modern KJV-only advocates.

 

[JD731]

You fail to show that you believe the actual original-language words of Scripture that God directly gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles rather than following a human, non-scriptural philosophy of modern KJV-only advocates.

It is my op and I don’t remember that being one of my stated goals for the thread. However, when the OT was quoted by our Lord Jesus and the authors of the NT scriptures wrote words that differed, they were not the original language words of the men of the OT but they were equally inspired in their new format. How could that be? The answer is because they were the words of God in both instances. I think you miss that fact.

 

[canadyjd]

…..
…..Trusting in the ability of God to preserve his words in translation has been replaced with the idea that scholarly men and institutions are charged to do it in the strangest of ways, by multiplied translations in the same language…..

1 Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent…….

Who is “replacing” the trust in God to preserve His Words? The folks who have dedicated their lives to learning the biblical languages and translating them are far more likely, imo, to have a very deep respect and understanding of God Holy Spirit’s role in preserving God’s Word.

You are misunderstanding the context of 1 Corinthians 1:19, which is a condemnation of those who rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified (both Jewish and Gentile) to on a stumbling block and to the other foolishness.

It is not a rejection of scholarship concerning the biblical languages.

peace to you

 

[Logos1560]

However, when the OT was quoted by our Lord Jesus and the authors of the NT scriptures wrote words that differed, they were not the original language words of the men of the OT but they were equally inspired in their new format. How could that be? The answer is because they were the words of God in both instances. I think you miss that fact.

I do not at all miss that fact.
Do you miss the fact that any translating of original-language words of the OT in the NT was part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets? The translated words were given directly by inspiration of God as part of the original-language of the New Testament. That process of the giving of additional Scripture by inspiration ended with the completion of the New Testament.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

The Church of England makers of the KJV were not prophets and apostles receiving words directly by inspiration of God. The revising of pre-1611 English Bibles and the translating by the makers of the KJV was not by direct inspiration of God. The translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV are like the translation decisions involved in the making of the 1560 Geneva Bible, in the making of the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, or in the making of the 1982 NKJV.

 

[Conan]

It is my op and I don’t remember that being one of my stated goals for the thread. However, when the OT was quoted by our Lord Jesus and the authors of the NT scriptures wrote words that differed, they were not the original language words of the men of the OT but they were equally inspired in their new format. How could that be? The answer is because they were the words of God in both instances. I think you miss that fact.

You might had missed the fact that the New Testament author's sometimes had different Old Testament readings than what has come down to us in the existing traditional Old Testament. That is two different readings. Hence the need for textual criticism.

 

[John of Japan]

I answered another email very recently from a missionary to Cameroon, where I taught some young translators principles of Bible translation some years ago. The Africans were pressuring the missionary to help them on their translation into Cameroon Pidgin, and he wanted the notes I had taught them from.

Those Africans also know the importance of the original languages of Scripture, and want to do their best at their sacred task.

 

[JD731]

I do not at all miss that fact.
Do you miss the fact that any translating of original-language words of the OT in the NT was part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets? The translated words were given directly by inspiration of God as part of the original-language of the New Testament. That process of the giving of additional Scripture by inspiration ended with the completion of the New Testament.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

The Church of England makers of the KJV were not prophets and apostles receiving words directly by inspiration of God. The revising of pre-1611 English Bibles and the translating by the makers of the KJV was not by direct inspiration of God. The translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV are like the translation decisions involved in the making of the 1560 Geneva Bible, in the making of the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, or in the making of the 1982 NKJV.

Responding to paragraph 1 in your comments.

You have God in your own little box and you will never let him out. You think God cannot translate and preserve his word because you and your buddies say he can't. You have this false idea that men are inspired and not the words of God. You would have us to believe God has given the church the mandate to translate the scriptures from the Hebrew and Greek into English hundreds of times and to handle it in paraphrases and by translating the thoughts of God (how dumb is that, Isa 55) as often as the urge overcomes you. This is not instructions for the church, or men of any stripe. This counsel comes out of the folder called "the wisdom of the wise."

Psalm 68:11
The Lord (Adonay) gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.
. The emphasis is "The Lord gave the word."

 

[JD731]

You might had missed the fact that the New Testament author's sometimes had different Old Testament readings than what has come down to us in the existing traditional Old Testament. That is two different readings. Hence the need for textual criticism.

This raises a question, why insist it is the word of God if only those first to hear it may consider it to be so? Remember, we are told that we must read from different source texts but our final decision is our own and is subjective.

 

[37818]

This raises a question, why insist it is the word of God if only those first to hear it may consider it to be so? Remember, we are told that we must read from different source texts but our final decision is our own and is subjective.

The actual reading of God's given text is objective.