Featured Is the KJV inspired?

You emphasize everything you type!
Everything!
Absolutely everything!
The exclamation mark is supposed to be used rarely!

 

"All Scripture is given by inspiration..." (2 Tim. 3:16). Now, the Scriptures were given in ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic. English is none of those languages. If one says that the KJV is inspired, he must then say that it is the Scriptures that were given by God. Therefore, the originals were not inspired. If that is so, then Christians did not have an inspired Bible until 1611.

Again, if we did not have an inspired Bible until 1611, then we did not have an inerrant Bible for almost 1600 years. I can demonstrate to you that the Bible is inerrant in the original languages (even in copies). You cannot demonstrate to me that the KJV was inerrant in its original manuscripts (which, by the way, were handwritten and are not extant). You see, there were numerous typos and other errors in the 1611 KJV.

I'm a Bible translator. Translations are not inerrant--any professional translator knows that. In fact, anyone who is fluent in a second language should know that. We have proofread our Japanese version of John from the TR about 8 times now, and I am now working through some corrections sent by one of our proofreaders for the 9th time through. If our Japanese translation were inspired, I would not have to do that. Inspiration is a miracle through which God kept the originals perfect the first time they were written down.

 

LOL

 

Grammar police! Gotta love it!!!

 

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Were the scriptures that Timothy had, which could not have been the original autographs, inspired according to the Paul?
Yes.
Let that guide you.

 

With so much strange and wrong doctrines on this board being posted at times, we have to get to what really counts I guess!

 

Just would be nice if the KJVO would actually bother to read the 1611 preface, where it is very clear that the 1611 translators would not have supported KJVO.

 

Do some try to read into 2 Timothy 3:15 more than it directly states? The verse does not actually state that Timothy’s Jewish mother and grandmother had scrolls with a complete copy of the Old Testament in their possession. The verse did not even directly say that Timothy’s mother, Timothy’s grandmother, or Timothy had read the holy Scriptures. The verb read is not used in the verse.

It says that Timothy had known the holy scriptures, and he could have known them by more than one way. Timothy could have known the holy scriptures by being taught them by his mother and grandmother and by hearing them read at the temple or at a synagogue. Timothy’s mother and grandmother may also have known the scriptures by hearing them read. In the Old Testament, it is noted that the priests were to read the law to all Israel every seven years (Deut. 31:9-13). Jews often had known the Scriptures by either hearing them read or hearing a prophet of God speak the words of God. Do KJV-only advocates cite any verses where it is stated that each Jewish home was to have possession of a complete copy of the Old Testament in their home? Would KJV-only advocates suggest that the scriptures cannot be known by hearing?

David Cloud asserted: “Scriptures written as scrolls were distributed only in portions,” and he indicated that a scroll copy of just the book of Isaiah would be about 24 feet long (Faith, p. 115). In the days of Jesus on earth, it is indicated that copies of Scripture were found at a synagogue, such as the copy of Isaiah, possibly a scroll, that was delivered to Jesus to read (Luke 4:16-17). From hearing the Scriptures read, Timothy’s mother and grandmother may have memorized or remembered some or many portions that they repeated to Timothy. Perhaps in their home they may possibly have had a copy of a few brief written portions that they could read, but the verse does not state directly anything about any personal possession of copies or anything about reading.

 

Would not much of their learning have been through oral and remembering of the passed down traditions also?

 

Concerning 2 Timothy 3:15, KJV defender Thomas Strouse observed: “The words ’holy scriptures’ translate hiera grammata, literally ’sacred’ or ’temple writings’” (The Lord God, p. 42). Concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, Thomas Strouse noted: “But the word ’scripture’ translates graphe, which means ’scripture’ and refers to the autographa.” Strouse added: “Paul obviously used a different word to differentiate between the apographa [copies] and the autographa [original autographs], especially with regard to the scope of inspiration” (Ibid.). Thomas Strouse asserted: “Grapha always refers to the autographical scripture whereas gramma sometimes refers to non-canonical literature. This distinction between these words might help one to recognize that Paul probably referred to the temple writings or scriptures (apographa) in v. 15 and the autographa in v. 16” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 239). The Greek word translated “scriptures” at 2 Timothy 3:15 is the same Greek word translated “bill” at Luke 16:6, 7, which is the example that Thomas Strouse cited as where the term referred to non-canonical literature.

 

I've come to see that the KJV was not "inspired" in the sense that God actually breathed the words of it into the men that translated it.
However, I do hold that because of the manuscripts used during its translation and because of the accuracy of the translation technique, that it can and does reflect the original autographs... and it does so far more than any other English translation that is in print today.

To clarify, I don't see the italicized words as being inspired...
But the rest of it, in English, are the very words of the living God.

 

Many on both sides in this discussion are not clear about the difference between a miracle and the providence of God. (I mean in general, not specifically anyone on this BB thread. ) A miracle occurs in an instant, or a very short time. It is when God reaches down into nature and does something contrary to nature: a man walking on water, a person instantaneously healed--you get the picture.

The inspiration of the Bible was miraculous. That is, it occurred at the moment in time that a certain word, phrase, sentence was written. It was God reaching down into nature, using a human source, and giving us His Word. Inspiration was contrary to nature: the Scriptures given to us are inerrant and powerful.

On the other hand, preservation occurs over time. Here is a good definition of the general doctrine which can be applied to Scripture: "“PRESERVATION. This form of divine activity is but the continuous working of God by which He maintains and consummates the objects of His creation" (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 25). So, the preservation of Scripture is not miraculous, but is God keeping the mss and message of Scripture completely accurate.

Here's an author who shows this confusion on the KJVO side: "God has promised to miraculously preserve forever all of His Word, His Words, and all His teachings with the words in which they are expressed" (Steve Combs, A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, p. 42; emphasis in the original). Now if the process of preservation takes place over time, it is not a miracle. Every single event called "miracle" (or "sign") in the Bible took place instantaneously or over a very short period of time.

The word "preserve" or a cognate appears in 46 Scripture verses. In every single mention of the word, especially when referring to God's preservation, it refers to a process: life (Ps. 41:2), our spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess. 5:23, etc.).

Now, what does this mean in the present discussion? God gave the Word by inspiration, "breathing it out" metaphorically. However, He preserves the original documents in their languages by His providence over time. So, in regards to the KJV, one occasionally reads that a person or church or organization believes that "The KJV is God's preserved Word in the English language." That is theologically permissible. However, saying that a translation is inspired is not theologically permissible. It simply goes against the meaning of the word "inspiration" as a miraculous event.

 

I care less about grammar. Using the "!" Is the same online as all caps.

 

NO, IT IS NOT!!!

 

Just wonder how you can demonstrate this about "copies", as many of them are blatantly corrupt in many places? Surely on the Original Autographs were Inspired by The Holy Spirit, and this Inspiration is unique and can never be claimed for any copy (mss), regardless of how good they are; nor for any Bible translation in any language.

 

The KJV, as good a translation it is, it is nevertheless only a translation of the Bible, done from texts of the originals. As God the Holy Spirit only did Inspire the actual Authors of the Books of the Holy Bible, it is ONLY these Original writings that can ever claim Inspiration from the Lord. This CANNOT be transferred to any translation, however good they might be.

 

Where KJVO folks and their churches go off the rail is when they claim perfect and only, as no translation can claim either!

 

One can be KJVP, and hold that the TR is the closest Greek text extant, but cannot claim "Only"

 

KJVO is a deluded MYTH!

 

Very vocal though