Inspired in the originals?

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Scott J:
There is nothing scripturally sound about your notion of resurrection. It negates preservation. You have thrown together instances or resurrection or restoration and developed a principle that you take liberty to misapply to the topic of Bible versions.

Even if your ideas were true, the selection of which Bible(s) represented these intermittant "resurrections" is purely subjective. You have no more sound reason to claim that the product of 17th century Anglican scholars is the "resurrection" than the LDS has to say that the Book of Mormon is a resurrected text... or than Benny Hinn has to say that his "prophecies" are a manifestation of the "resurrected" Word.

I could say the same thing about the canon of scripture that only appeared in its currently accepted form in the late 1700's. You have no more sound reason to claim that the canon (as accepted by the modern fundamental church) is closed than the LDS has to say that the Book of Mormon cannot be included... or than Benny Hinn has to say that his "prophecies" should be included in the canon.
This is only true if we totally ignore fruit.

Your theory demands that someone be qualified to re-write scripture. The NT writers wrote by apostolic authority which was only authenticated by seeing the risen Christ. The OT writers spoke as they were moved by God Himself. Their writings were also authenticated by Christ Himself.

According to my theory, nothing was ever re-written. It was providentially preserved by resurrection the same as the 10-commandment tablets and Jeremiah's rolls. God's means were always his business. He can use an ex-pharasee-scholar-type. He can use an ass.

My theory only demands three things. A Biblical precedent, a Big God who is there, and faith.

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, the principle that God providentially uses the imperfect and even sinful works of man to accomplish His perfect will is demonstrated throughout scripture starting with the fall of Adam.

Likewise, God has used the imperfect works and words of men to preserve His perfect (complete) Word (revelation of Himself and His plan).

It is not Biblically sound to extend God's providential use of imperfect men to his willingness to use an imperfect Bible. If this were true, then why argue that the Word was ever perfect at all, even in the originals? There are many verses that support your statement that God uses imperfect men. But His Word is a different subject all together.

Psalms 138.2. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name

Lacy

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:
And even if it did, why do you then conclude that such "moving" made the original without any error?

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.

They were a result of His direct action in the same way creation was. God created a perfect world. It was man who corrupted it.

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!!!

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Do you think God preserved his word? Was it not through copiers or translators? And if it was GOD who preserved, then he was working THROUGH THESE MEN! It's the same perfect God!!!

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.

It is no more necessary to have a perfectly worded Bible to have God's preserved Word than it was for Jacob's efforts to be sinless in order for Him to become the patriarch.

You could say the same about the originals.

Simply look at the evidence God has provided- over 5,000 mss that are not the same. To prove what you believe, you must determine that single document out of 5,000+ that has it right then show a succession of perfect documents leading to the one.

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

 

[aefting]

Originally quoted by Lacy Evans:
It is another thread but I think I make a good case for resurrection being the Biblical manner of preservation, and so far no one has shown me a scripturally sound alternative.

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?

I agree with you at least for a while: For one thousand years when the Roman whore ruled with an iron fist, there was not one copy inspired to absolute perfection on the planet. The only source of truth was the "witness of the multitude of copies." During the darkest age of human history, men clung to the "tenacity of the texts." True seekers of God poured over "relatively reliable" texts praying to be able to discern the errors. But when men like Walter Brute, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, etc. began to search through the rubble, soon The Book was found!:

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

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />They were a result of His direct action in the same way creation was. God created a perfect world. It was man who corrupted it.

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.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
It is not Biblically sound to extend God's providential use of imperfect men to his willingness to use an imperfect Bible.

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.

If this were true, then why argue that the Word was ever perfect at all, even in the originals?

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.

There are many verses that support your statement that God uses imperfect men. But His Word is a different subject all together.

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.

Psalms 138.2. I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name

Lacy

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.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:

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!!!

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.

</font>[/QUOTE]You missed Bartholomew's point completely. Scripture TEACHES that [only] the original creation was very good. It does NOT teach the same about God's word!! What is "perfect" ("very good", if you will) Biblically, is "scripture" which always includes copies and translations we can study, and never refers exclusively to the autographs.

Lacy

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
Scripture TEACHES that [only] the original creation was very good. It does NOT teach the same about God's word!! What is "perfect" ("very good", if you will) Biblically, is "scripture" which always includes copies and translations we can study, and never refers exclusively to the autographs.

Lacy

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.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:

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.

It is very unlikely that David ever saw a shred of a Moses-autograph. Show me Biblically that David was referring to the what he was writing and not the Bible he owned and studied,(which was a copy). Show me that he excluded Exodus, Numbers, Job etc (when he used his phrase "The Words of God") since he didn't have autographs available.

I too believe that the words were inspired as they came off the writers pen, but the "inspiration" is also attributed to "scripture" which includes copies and translations.

Ps 119:160 -
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous
judgments endureth for ever.
Lacy

 

[HankD]

I too believe that the words were inspired as they came off the writers pen, but the "inspiration" is also attributed to "scripture" which includes copies and translations.

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 Evans]

Hankd, do you really not know my position by now? Oh wait! I get it, you're just being funny! I like a little sarcasm every once in a while.

Which of the following books (all of which were included in the accepted canon at one time or another.) are NOT inspired and why?

"Shepherd of Hermas"
"Epistle of Jeremiah",
"Epistle of Barnabas"
Revelation of Peter,
Letter of Clement of Rome,
"Preaching of Peter",
"Teaching of the Apostles"
1 Clement
Book of Judith
Baruch (in Jeremiah).
O.T. Apocrypha


Obviously, (as can be seen from the preceding list) a revival took place in the mainstream in the 17th century. As already noted, in 1647, the Westminster Confession of Faith listed the exact 66 Books (with no additions in Daniel or Jeremiah) now recognized by conservative, fundamental Christians.


66 Book Onlyism

 

[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

 

[Ransom]

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.