-
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!
Does a Multitude of Modern English Bible Versions Promote a Violation of 1 Cor 1:10
- Thread starter JD731
- Start date
- Status
Your strawman distortion and misrepresentation of what I stated is not true. I accept what God stated, and I do not at all put God in my own little box. What I soundly noted in agreement with several KJV-only authors is that the term inspiration is the term for how the words proceeded directly from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3).
The Scriptures do also teach that certain holy men of God (the prophets and apostles) were directly involved in the process of the giving of all Scriptures by inspiration of God to them.
The Scriptures do not state nor teach that inspiration is the term for how the original-language Scriptures would be later copied or for how post-NT translating of the original-language Scriptures would be done. Men were given instructions and warnings that related to the copying of the Scriptures [not to add any words, not to omit words, and not to change words] because that copying would not be done by a direct miracle of God that prevented imperfect men from doing any of those things.
On the other hand, KJV-only reasoning seems to try to put God in its little box and dictate to God the only way that it says is the way that God's original-language words of Scripture have to be preserved. KJV-only reasoning suggests that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and interpretation/translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611.
Typical KJV-only reasoning conflicts with the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers since it in effect makes the makers of the KJV into an exclusive group of priests who alone are permitted to interpret/translate the original-language Scriptures into English.
Those verses do not support your claim that men are inspired. Certain men are chosen of God as stewards, but they are not said to be inspired. They have a stewardship that will come under the judgement of God at some point. This is especially true of the NT writers. I posted the truth of it all by already quoting 2 Tim 3 and showed by the words how they made my point that words are inspired and not men. You did not oppose what I claimed by showing how I was in error of how I handled the holy scriptures.
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Verse 21 says these men are "holy" men of God. It does not say they are inspired men of God. They are vessels set aside for the purpose of first speaking the words of God and then writing them. The word holy means "separated." Peter, James, and John are the only men who say they heard the voice from heaven on the holy mount.
So, the word inspiration has the idea of breathing (do a word search and see if I am telling the truth). It would be like breathng out the words of the Spirit. Only holy men can do this. Here is a companion verse.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but (the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The natural man can read scripture but he cannot receive the spiritual content of it because he is absent from the very thing that is common to both God the Father, whose words we must have, and the saved man, the Spirit of God. I did not say that, God did. This does not mean the natural man can not and does not fashion together a systematic theology, because he often does and we have many different theological systems to deal with now because all but God's comes strictly from human wisdom and scholarship, but these various systems are not dependent on words of the Spirit of God. The words of these systems are often drawn from a broad source pool like a hundred different translations, all with different words. One must have inspired words. God breathed words. Living words. Eternal words. These are the words God the Father is going to remember. The Son of God is called the word of the Lord because he is the one who has given the words voice.
God does have a systematic structure in his way and for his purpose. It conflicts with humanistic systems and is mostly rejected as being foolishness by them.
1 Cor 4:Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
After Paul wrote the second letter to the Corinthians, some who were willing to follow false apostles who came in claiming they were God's apostle and that Paul was not, Paul closed his letter with an admonishment to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith, lest they be reprobates. These false apostles could not have taught the mysteries.
You did not read carefully. I myself did not claim that men are inspired. I accurately pointed out that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles asserted that certain men such as David are inspired and that the KJV translators suggested that certain men were inspired. To refer to the inspiring of men or to "inspired men" is consistent with early English Bible terminology from the very good Bibles in the line of good Bibles promoted by KJV-only advocates. Do you claim to be superior in your understanding of the Scriptures that the men who translated the Scriptures into English in the 1500's and in 1611?
Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost."
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.”
KJV-only authors have asserted that 2 Peter 1:21 is a parallel verse to 2 Timothy 3:16 on inspiration. Evangelist Harold Boyd, a KJV-only advocate, asserted: “If you want a good definition for inspiration, I believe you will find this in 2 Peter 1:21” (Flaming Torch, August, 1981, p. 3). 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). H. D. Williams wrote: “Other verses refer to inspiration without using the word, inspiration, but teach that men were ‘moved by the Holy Spirit’ to record the Words in the autographs, the original manuscripts” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 194). Concerning 2 Peter 1:21, Tim Fellure asserted: “Though the apostle Peter did not use the word, he did define the process of inspiration” (Neither Jot nor Tittle, p. 23).
In the preface of the 1568 Bishops’ Bible, Matthew Parker maintained that the apostle Paul was “inspired from God above” and that “he did inspire Moses” (Richmond, Fathers, VIII, pp. 146, 151). Lancelot Andrewes, KJV translator, used this early Bible terminology when he preached that Christ "inspireth them [the apostles] with the Holy Ghost" (Ninety-Six Sermons, Library, V, p. 83). Andrewes stated that “the Prophet did nothing but as inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six, III, p. 317). Concerning 2 Peter 1:19, Lancelot Andrewes commented: “The apostle teacheth us that we have the Law from God immediately, and all other scripture by the ministry of men, but yet as they spake nothing but that which the Spirit of God commanded them and inspired into them, and therefore that which they delivered we must hold for a most sure and infallible truth” (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 46). KJV translator John Overall wrote: “For we hold it resolutely, that whatsoever the Apostles did either write, teach, or command, they wrote, taught, and commanded it as they were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost” (Convocation Book, p. 120). Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, wrote: “The prophets were inspired from above” (Perpetual Government, p. 136).
Some KJV defenders and KJV-only advocates have also used this terminology used by the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators. John William Burgon wrote: “My position is this. All Christian men allow that the Apostles and Evangelists of our LORD were inspired” (Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 145). In the introduction to his book Which Bible, David Otis Fuller wrote that “the Spirit of God ‘carried along’ those inspired writers of His words” (p. 5). Edward Hills made mention of "the inspiration which the Apostles received from the Holy Spirit" and called the writers of the Gospels "these inspired evangelists" (Believing Bible Study, p. 31). In the first edition of his book KJV Defended, Edward Hills referred to “the inspired Apostles” (p. 48). David Sorenson also made mention of “the inspired writers” (Touch Not, p. 6) and “the inspired writer“ (God‘s Perfect Book, p. 15).. David Norris also referred to “the inspired writers” (Big Picture, p. 37). Kent Rabe, a KJV-only advocate, noted that "the Holy Spirit inspired Peter" (Double Exposure, p. 5). Wally Beebe wrote: “I think the Holy Spirit breathed inspiration into the writers of our Bible so they would not err” (Church Bus News, April-June, 2002, p. 17). Peter Ruckman wrote: “Luke writes by inspiration,” and he asked: “why did God inspire him [Luke]” (Problem Texts, p. 34).
Over and over, a good number of believers including some KJV-only advocates have used this early English Bible terminology. After giving his definition for inspire in his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster wrote: "In this manner, we supposed the prophets to have been inspired, and the Scriptures to have been composed under divine influence or direction."
Are you questioning the understanding/interpreting/and translating of the Scriptures by William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, and the makers of the KJV?
Last edited:
Do you consider the early English Bible translators and the KJV translators to be "false apostles"?
Do you think that the early English Bible translators needed you to help them understand, interpret, and translate the Scriptures correctly since you seem to assert that their understanding of inspiration was so wrong?
I have not said anything about any of those men. I have asked the question on this thread if all these different ways of saying what God said in words is disobedience to the command for everyone to speak the same things so there will not be divisions when he comes. Is it God's will we have over a hundred translations in the same language in the last 120 years and still counting? Is that the way you would achieve unity if you were charged to devise a plan for it?
In post # 64 you opined that scripture must be understood in a certain way because all those scholarly teachers and writers said such and such and you quoted them saying it. But you are 180 degrees off target. The Scriptures are not judged by what men say about them, men are judged by what the scriptures say about them.
Your theology comes from studying the words of these cherry picked men and you quote them over and over. You pick the quotes that advances your arguments. This is what I find so strange. You quote everybody but God. You rarely quote anything you call the scriptures to make your points. I have thought about this and have concluded that you don't quote the scriptures because you are ashamed to. By that I mean you have titled yourself for internet participation with Logos1560 and yet the few times I have known you to present a Bible verse, it is from the KJV and not the Geneva Bible. That is rather clumsy. Maybe you have a different reason for it but it seems clear that your belief system is impacted far more by your library and your research than by the Bible and what it actually says.
I am not going to discuss my thread about 1 Cor 1:10 in the context of the KJV only but in the context of the command of God for unity in speech.
You jump to a wrong conclusion and bear false witness. You judge unrighteous judgments.
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration <H5397> of the almighty giveth them understanding. (spoken by Elihu)
Is this not what 1 Cor 2 says about how men get the mind of God through his words. Seventeen times (out of 24 times it is used) in the KJV this word is translated by the English word "breath."
In the NT of the KJV we have the English word "inspiration." Notice how it is written.
All scripture is given by inspiration (breath = his Spirit) "of God." Not of men.
As a side note, it is hypocritical of the Reformed to teach the absolute and unbending sovereignty of God in all things , except his scriptures.
Consider this;
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and "breathed" into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Ge 2:7
This is a "testimony" of God. There is no way to prove it. One must accept it as true by faith. The Spirit is the breath of God, it/he is inspiration.
It is no wonder God wants us to "speak the same thing."
I clearly noted that the original-language words of Scripture are God-breathed or that the words proceeded from the mouth of God.
Perhaps you demonstrate that you are in vain seeking a way to accuse, smear, or attack me instead of discussing soundly what I posted.
You seem to continue to ignore and avoid the parallel verse concerning inspiration--2 Peter 1:21. You do not demonstrate that the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators had a wrong or heretical view of inspiration. You avoid what the pre-1611 English Bibles stated. You avoid accusing or condemning the early English Bible translators in the way that you try inconsistently and unjustly to accuse or condemn me.
Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost."
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.”
Last edited:
You are projecting your M/O on me. Maybe I am guilty of attacking you without realizing it but I am not here on this thread for that purpose. I am disagreeing with you on the doctrine of inspiration and preservation of the word of God in translation. I am offering scriptural reasons for my position and I am not using other peoples words to make my case. I have not quoted any one else. If I am wrong about inspiration, show me from the scriptures instead of accusing me of heresy simply because you think I disagree with your scholars or men you know. What have I said about inspiration that is wrong? Where have I missapplied the word of God?
You accuse me of avoiding the parallel verse concerning inspiration. Here is the verse you say I am avoiding. You won't quote it so I will.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 TIM 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Why does it make men like you so angry that some believes God can and has preserved his inspiration in translations of his words into another langauge other than the time he translated his inspired words from Hebrew to Greek in the writing of the NT? This is not without precedent.
37818
Well-Known Member
Think! What has that to do with the fact that the actual reading of God's given text is objective?
Okay, I will think. The problem Paul was adrressing in 1:10 was before there was any text. He wrote the text to correct the problem. The decision of which of the personalities they "were of" was subjective.
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
A big conjunction coming up linking contentions to failure to speak the same things and being of the same mind and judgement.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
37818
Well-Known Member
And this has absolutely what to do with our modern translations textual variants?
There are sound scriptural reasons for believers to object to the teaching of human, non-scriptural opinions, traditions, and teachings of men as being a doctrine of God when they are not. Some may assume by use of fallacies such as begging the question claims for the KJV that they do not prove to be true and scriptural.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside
the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (Mark 7:7-9)
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matthew 15:6b)
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9)
Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:3b)
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men (Col. 2:8a)
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men? (Col. 2:20-22)
Beware of false prophets (Matt. 7:15a)
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth (Titus 1:14)
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge (1 Cor. 14:29)
We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29b)
Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye (Acts 4:19b)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)
and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17b)
And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts (Psalm 119:45)
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5:1)
The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and interpretation/translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England priests/men in 1611.
KJV defender John Cereghin asked: "Isn't it strange that we condemn Catholics for their traditionalism and then proceed to force Baptists into accepting Baptist traditionalism?" (Maranatha Baptist Watchman, Feb., 1996, p. 3). Mickey Carter asserted that “we are not to accept ‘Baptist popes’ either” (Things That Are Different, p. 60). David Cloud wrote: “I do not have to rely on priests or scholars or tradition or extrabiblical sources” (Faith, p. 15). Jack Hyles declared: “The only authority that we as independent Baptists have is the Bible” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 39). G. John Rov asserted: “Revelation has been traded for tradition in the name of human scholarship” (Concealed from Christians, pp. 96-97). J. J. Ray declared: “The true Word of God is thus made of none effect when mixed with tradition (Mark 7:13) (God Wrote, p. 3). After citing Jeremiah 23:16, Doug Stauffer wrote: “Extra-biblical teachings, traditions and doctrines (those established apart from the Bible) frequently contain no more truth than the words from the mouths of these false prophets” (One Book One Authority, p. 59). Concerning the Pharisees, Jeff Farnham declared: “Their addition was that they taught for doctrines the commandments of men and kept their own traditions. Their subtraction was in that they rejected the commandment of God” (God’s Forever Word, p. 17).
Pastor Glenn Conjurske, a strong advocate of the KJV and a critic of modern versions, wrote: “Traditionalism is doctrinally false, misapprehending entirely the ways of the Lord” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, p. 194; Bible Version, p. 13). Glenn Conjurske suggested that “the tap root of all traditionalism” is “pride” and that “traditionalism is the short road to establishing the divinity of our own standards” (p. 195; Bible Versions, p. 14). Glenn Conjurske added: “Traditionalism is not only proud, but usually lazy also. It is a very comfortable position. There is great security in it. It saves us from the necessity of thinking” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske affirmed: “Traditionalism always involves a transfer of authority from the infallible Scriptures to some work of fallible man, on the supposition that the work of man is the work of God, and the only true representation of the Scriptures” (Ibid.).
Glenn Conjurske also observed: “Traditionalists, of course, proceed upon the assumption that there can be no conflict between their standards and the Scriptures, as both are of God, but in this they are as naïve as they are mistaken, and to maintain the mistake they must often close their eyes to the facts. This shutting of the eyes is indeed one of the most prominent characteristics of the modern King-James-Only movement, which constantly denies facts, invents, contorts, and misrepresents them, rewrites history, and even condemns the recognition of facts as unbelief and rationalism” (pp. 195-196; Bible Version, p. 15). Glenn Conjurske maintained that traditionalism “requires no mental exercise, no wrestling with difficulties, no facing of issues, no dealing with stubborn facts, but only a sacrifice of mind to a few pious assumptions, usually false” (Dec., 1997, p. 277; Bible Version, p. 83).
Pastor Glenn Conjurske, a strong advocate of the KJV and a critic of modern versions, wrote: “Traditionalism is doctrinally false, misapprehending entirely the ways of the Lord” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, p. 194; Bible Version, p. 13). Glenn Conjurske suggested that “the tap root of all traditionalism” is “pride” and that “traditionalism is the short road to establishing the divinity of our own standards” (p. 195; Bible Versions, p. 14). Glenn Conjurske added: “Traditionalism is not only proud, but usually lazy also. It is a very comfortable position. There is great security in it. It saves us from the necessity of thinking” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske affirmed: “Traditionalism always involves a transfer of authority from the infallible Scriptures to some work of fallible man, on the supposition that the work of man is the work of God, and the only true representation of the Scriptures” (Ibid.).
Glenn Conjurske also observed: “Traditionalists, of course, proceed upon the assumption that there can be no conflict between their standards and the Scriptures, as both are of God, but in this they are as naïve as they are mistaken, and to maintain the mistake they must often close their eyes to the facts. This shutting of the eyes is indeed one of the most prominent characteristics of the modern King-James-Only movement, which constantly denies facts, invents, contorts, and misrepresents them, rewrites history, and even condemns the recognition of facts as unbelief and rationalism” (pp. 195-196; Bible Version, p. 15). Glenn Conjurske maintained that traditionalism “requires no mental exercise, no wrestling with difficulties, no facing of issues, no dealing with stubborn facts, but only a sacrifice of mind to a few pious assumptions, usually false” (Dec., 1997, p. 277; Bible Version, p. 83).
<Scratching my head.>
I started this thread to discuss the possibility that many "modern" translations in the English language might violate the spirit of the command in 1 Cor 1:10 for Christians to speak the same thing for the reason of avoiding contentions and ensuring they be perfectly joined together and all be of the same mind and the same judgement. I wondered about this because the translations all have enough differences to obtain copyrights and some of them are paraphrases and others claim they are interpreting and translating the thoughts of God. I do not know anything about textual variants. I did consider the context and since it was given in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I considered the admonition was to Christians.
Then you offer a short one liner about objectivity and I don't know what you mean. Maybe you were disagreeing with my suggestion that if you have a hundred different English versions of the words the decision for the one or ones you choose is subjective. Why wouldn't it be if you have freedom to choose?
Last edited:
I wish you would get as excited about proving your own position on Bible translation as you are about disproving someone else's. That would be different. The church of Jesus Christ has not been instructed from the Greek language for many centuries and it is not being instructed by the Greek language now. God does not require it.
I personally do not know of anyone who has made that argument.
37818
Well-Known Member
The objectively of the word of God in a matter is not affected by the subjectivety of the audience. So the problem as you proposed is not limited to translations but applies to us as believers.
Local churches in Greece are instructed from Greek Bibles.
God does not require English-speaking believers to be instructed from only the KJV.
The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.
Believers are at liberty in Christ to esteem which Bible translation that they may prefer, but these personal preferences, opinions, and reasonings of men would not be actual Bible doctrine or a doctrine of God.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor. 3:17). The truth shall make believers free (John 8:32). Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made believers free (Gal. 5:1). Mere personal, individual, or subjective preferences should not be permitted to become possibly a stumbling-block for other believers (Rom. 14:13, 1 Cor. 8:9).
It seems to me the problem as I proposed existed in Corinth or it would not have been addressed. The question of authority runs through both letters to the Corinthians.
I accept that I can be missing your point.
- Status