Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
From: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QQFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1VbUUstY_qaP0sBHQJEWjK
Is any translation “inspired”? Is the KJV an “inspired translation”?
"God “inspired” or “breathed out” (Qeopneusto", 2 Tim 3:16) His words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Strictly speaking, the divinely inspired words were the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words God gave to His Prophets and Apostles to pen the Holy Scriptures.
What is the relation between the inspired text and its derived translation?
"By way of illustration, the original language Scripture underlying the KJV is like the perfect platinum yardstick of the Smithsonian Institute, infallible, inerrant, authoritative.
"The KJV and other accurate and reliable translations are like the common yardstick, though not 100% are good and safe enough for use.
"Although there may be a need to consult the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts especially when interpreting difficult verses, we do not believe that the King James translators were in any way careless in translating their Bible. The same however cannot be said of [snip]
Is the KJV “scripture?” Is it “given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16)?
"The KJV as a translation was not “given by inspiration of God.”
“All Scripture” (pasa grafh) of 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the original Hebrew, Aramaic OT and Greek NT words that God had “breathed out” without any error or mistake.
"These divinely inspired words in the original languages are infallible and inerrant and cannot be corrected, improved upon or changed in any way.
"The English words of the KJV are translated words. But since the English words in the KJV are so accurately and faithfully translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words, we can confidently declare the KJV to be “the Word of God,” and “Holy Scripture,” and thus “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17)."
Having just read, "The KJV as a translation was not “given by inspiration of God”, we also know that The Protestant Reformation arose prior to the KJV because of the Bibles they used.
Sola Scriptura (Scriptures Alone) was one of the Reformation pillars.
What were the pre-1611 Bibles that were “the Word of God”?
They were the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Tyndale Bible (1525), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew Bible (1537), the Taverner Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568), all of which facilitated the Reformation cause, and were faithful precursors to the King James Bible.
So, with their designation of "the Word of God", I go future in my estimation of these Bibles than the strictly defined word used in the Bible which designates that the original Autographs were "God breathed' and "given by the Inspiration of God", and therefore perfectly inerrent and infallible in their content.
The purity of God’s Word has been faithfully maintained throughout the whole transmission of the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text, and finally attained in the Apographa of the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament
underlying the KJV.
I see the KJV and other accurate and reliable translations of the Word of God that were faithfully translated and based on the pure and preserved OT Masoretic Text and NT Received Text, such as the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Tyndale Bible (1525), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew Bible (1537), the Taverner Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568) as rightly being able to be considered the Word of God, also, infallible and inerrant insofar as they accurately reflect the original text.
And although their contents are not perfect, by the Inspiration of God, I do view their content as Divine and of Divine Origin and in that sense these translations are The Inspired Word of God.
These faithfully translated Bibles, from sufficient original language texts are God's Living Word, which The Holy Spirit joins to, uses, and witnesses with.
So, even as copies of the original Autographs, I call them inspired, which is the result of their Divine Content and Divine Origin, not that they have been produced perfectly.
This is an inspiration that is Supernatural, derived from their Divine Content they possess and their Divine Origin, in the same way they possess derived inerrancy and infallibility, insofar as they accurately and faithfully reflect the original language texts, consequently, "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
The word, "discerner", may be thought of as the Word of God being a "critic" of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Then, the Word of God is the critic of the one who says "the Bible we hold in our hand is not Inspired", not the other way around.
Or claim I am holding to a position of "Double Inspiration", which I do not. Let the Book be the judge, now and at the last day.
The overwhelming consensus is that our Bible can not be said to be inspired, by the strictest definition of the word, however, for generations an element of inspiration was understood to also have been preserved and the Bibles we hold and the scriptures in them called inspired.
I'm staying with them whether I articulated my conviction clearly, or whether it can't be satisfactorily articulated. I believe God's Word that has been faithfully translated from accurately preserved original language texts is inspired as it sits, by faith.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11.
Is any translation “inspired”? Is the KJV an “inspired translation”?
"God “inspired” or “breathed out” (Qeopneusto", 2 Tim 3:16) His words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Strictly speaking, the divinely inspired words were the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words God gave to His Prophets and Apostles to pen the Holy Scriptures.
What is the relation between the inspired text and its derived translation?
"By way of illustration, the original language Scripture underlying the KJV is like the perfect platinum yardstick of the Smithsonian Institute, infallible, inerrant, authoritative.
"The KJV and other accurate and reliable translations are like the common yardstick, though not 100% are good and safe enough for use.
"Although there may be a need to consult the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts especially when interpreting difficult verses, we do not believe that the King James translators were in any way careless in translating their Bible. The same however cannot be said of [snip]
Is the KJV “scripture?” Is it “given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16)?
"The KJV as a translation was not “given by inspiration of God.”
“All Scripture” (pasa grafh) of 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the original Hebrew, Aramaic OT and Greek NT words that God had “breathed out” without any error or mistake.
"These divinely inspired words in the original languages are infallible and inerrant and cannot be corrected, improved upon or changed in any way.
"The English words of the KJV are translated words. But since the English words in the KJV are so accurately and faithfully translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words, we can confidently declare the KJV to be “the Word of God,” and “Holy Scripture,” and thus “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17)."
Having just read, "The KJV as a translation was not “given by inspiration of God”, we also know that The Protestant Reformation arose prior to the KJV because of the Bibles they used.
Sola Scriptura (Scriptures Alone) was one of the Reformation pillars.
What were the pre-1611 Bibles that were “the Word of God”?
They were the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Tyndale Bible (1525), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew Bible (1537), the Taverner Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568), all of which facilitated the Reformation cause, and were faithful precursors to the King James Bible.
So, with their designation of "the Word of God", I go future in my estimation of these Bibles than the strictly defined word used in the Bible which designates that the original Autographs were "God breathed' and "given by the Inspiration of God", and therefore perfectly inerrent and infallible in their content.
The purity of God’s Word has been faithfully maintained throughout the whole transmission of the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text, and finally attained in the Apographa of the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament
underlying the KJV.
I see the KJV and other accurate and reliable translations of the Word of God that were faithfully translated and based on the pure and preserved OT Masoretic Text and NT Received Text, such as the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Tyndale Bible (1525), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew Bible (1537), the Taverner Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568) as rightly being able to be considered the Word of God, also, infallible and inerrant insofar as they accurately reflect the original text.
And although their contents are not perfect, by the Inspiration of God, I do view their content as Divine and of Divine Origin and in that sense these translations are The Inspired Word of God.
These faithfully translated Bibles, from sufficient original language texts are God's Living Word, which The Holy Spirit joins to, uses, and witnesses with.
So, even as copies of the original Autographs, I call them inspired, which is the result of their Divine Content and Divine Origin, not that they have been produced perfectly.
This is an inspiration that is Supernatural, derived from their Divine Content they possess and their Divine Origin, in the same way they possess derived inerrancy and infallibility, insofar as they accurately and faithfully reflect the original language texts, consequently, "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
The word, "discerner", may be thought of as the Word of God being a "critic" of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Then, the Word of God is the critic of the one who says "the Bible we hold in our hand is not Inspired", not the other way around.
Or claim I am holding to a position of "Double Inspiration", which I do not. Let the Book be the judge, now and at the last day.
The overwhelming consensus is that our Bible can not be said to be inspired, by the strictest definition of the word, however, for generations an element of inspiration was understood to also have been preserved and the Bibles we hold and the scriptures in them called inspired.
I'm staying with them whether I articulated my conviction clearly, or whether it can't be satisfactorily articulated. I believe God's Word that has been faithfully translated from accurately preserved original language texts is inspired as it sits, by faith.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11.
