Our Scriptural Confidence is that We have a Pure, More Sure Word of Prophecy.

[Alan Dale Gross]

The King James Version is an English Bible translation. The very word translation by definition (when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language) would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent

And in the case of original language manuscripts persevered through the centuries by God's people being used as the source for translation, we are assured that the initial autographs came from a Divine Source and, therefore, those original language copies, by comparison with the majority, also have a Divine Source that is derived from the autographs.

And the Lord said He would Maintain that our translations from them are also Derived, secondarily but essentially, from that same Divine Source, since their Author said He would Preserve His Words to Mankind.

By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.”

Which in no way precludes their Authenticity, Integrity, Authority, and Inspiration derived from a Divine Source.

Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language.

Above.

What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived?

And the essential quality of the Sources may be that they were Divinely Originated and Inspired, from which a translation may Receive Derived Inspiration.

Without original-language texts from which to be translated, a Bible translation would not exist.

Very good, however a translation may have all of the same qualities Intended by the Author of the original-language texts Contained in their entirety, as God has Determined.

A Bible translation cannot be something other than what it is.

An Inspired translation Derived from an initial Divine Source can not be said to be any less Blessed than what it is.

By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original-language texts of Scripture.

And yet, when faithful to those original-language texts, a Bible translation may be said to be virtually and essentially indistinguishable from the original-language, for all the Intends and Purposes of their Author.

To state that a Bible translation is not the untranslated original-language Scriptures is to state the truth.

To state that a faithful Bible translation is not appreciably different from the untranslated original-language Scriptures is to state the truth, by a factor of what? 99.9999%-100.0000%?

By definition, every dependent thing or being such as a translation depends upon something else for its making and existence.

The Lord Promised that the Making and Existence of the translations dependent on Him as their Divine Source would Result in a More Sure Word of Prophecy, than that of the Old Testament Prophets.

Is this property of dependence a primary or essential part of what constitutes a translation?

The property of dependence of Bible translations includes the Superintendent Mind and Hand of God as a Primary and essential part, on Whom they are dependent.

I know exactly what I think about the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles and what I think about post-NT Bible translations. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

The scriptures state that they are Pure Words, Derived from God Himself, to the extent that since they contain the Revelation of Him and His Operation of the Universe, including the translations of His Word from one language to another, He has Exalted His Word as being more important in Stature and Significance than His Very Thrice-Holy Name.

That, along with all of the other above points, is a big deal.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

from which a translation may Receive Derived Inspiration.

Alan, I agree with your emphasis on the purity and authority of Scripture, and I agree that faithful translations carry the preserved inspired words of God. But I am cautious about saying translations “receive derived inspiration.” That might be taken to imply reinspiration, which would require the original inspiration to pass away, something Christ explicitly denies in Matthew 24:35. Inspiration is preserved, not rebreathed. The translation carries the inspired words; it does not become newly inspired. Otherwise, major kudos.

 

[Logos1560]

Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse [2 Tim. 3:16] does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite contended: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning on Gail Riplinger’s, p. 32). D. A. Waite observed: “The accurate view of Bible inspiration is found in 2 Timothy 3:16. That verse refers to the way that the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words were produced by God’s true plenary verbal inspiration” (p. 20). Dennis Kwok asserted: “No translation can claim to be 100% equivalent to the original language Scriptures” (VPP, p. 19).

Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Bryan Ross wrote: “Inspiration does not guarantee the inspiration of any particular modern or ancient translation” (From This Generation, Vol. 1, p. 322). Phil Stringer asserted that “there is not the slightest hint of any such doctrine [that God repeated the miracle of ‘inspiration’ in 1611] anywhere in the King James Bible” (Unbroken Bible, p. 15). Phil Stringer noted that “when God wanted to describe the means of inspiration He chose to call it ‘God-breathed’” (pp. 60-61).

D. A. Waite wrote: “God never once caused any human writers or translators to operate any more under his DIVINE INSPIRATION of the words in any translation or version throughout human history thus far (nor will He in the future) in the same or even in a similar sense as He did when He originally gave His Word under DIVINE INSPIRATION” (Dean Burgon News, August, 1980, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Inspiration refers solely to the original and preserved God-breathed Words, which were recorded by the prophets and Apostles” (Pure Words, p. 20). H. D. Williams asserted: “The Greek word, graphe, in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the autographs” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 193). In the preface of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite concerning the three Greek words that make up the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16. Waite noted that “these three Words refer exclusively to God’s miraculous action of His original breathing out of His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments” (p. iv, also p. 2). Waite added: “These Words do not refer to any Bible translation in any language of the world” (Ibid.).

 

[Logos1560]

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Sam. 7:4, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Jer. 32:26, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The word of the LORD from the mouth of a true prophet is the truth (1 Kings 17:24).

The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3, Rom. 6:17). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. The term “man of God’ in 2 Timothy 3:17 could suggest a prophet when the Old Testament usages of that term are considered.

Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The term “man of God” is used in the Old Testament to refer to prophets (Deut. 33:1, 1 Sam. 2:27, 1 Sam. 9:6, 1 Kings 13:1, 1 Kings 20:28, 2 Kings 6:6, 2 Kings 8:2, 2 Kings 8:8, 2 Kings 13:19). The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16). The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7). The Scriptures directly given to the prophets and apostles is what is identified as being all Scripture “given by inspiration of God.”

 

[Logos1560]

however a translation may have all of the same qualities Intended by the Author of the original-language texts Contained in their entirety, as God has Determined.

Where do the Scriptures state or teach that inspiration is a quality or attribute that is transferred to post-NT Bible translations?

Do any KJV defenders clearly, consistently, and soundly prove from the Scriptures the idea that inspiration is actually identified in Scripture to be a continuing attribute or quality that will be or at least can be transferred in the later post-NT process of translation?

If inspiration was a continuing attribute or quality in the Hebrew Masoretic OT text and in the Textus Receptus NT text that could be transferred during translation, then it would be expected that it should have been transferred to the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, to the 1560 Geneva Bible, or to all the pre-1611 English Bibles. Do KJV-only advocates suggest that the pre-1611 English Bibles had the breath of God still on them? How would the fact of some significant textual differences in the varying printed Textus Receptus editions suggest that all the editions had the continuing quality of inspiration? If inspiration was not transferred to any of the pre-1611 English Bibles, does it suggest that inspiration was not a continuing quality or attribute that could be transferred, or does it suggest that the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus did not have it? Could the same attribute be affirmed and denied of the same things which are dependent upon each other? If inspiration was an attribute or quality of any of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision, it could be regarded as a serious problem for KJV-only reasoning since the makers of the KJV made many changes and revisions to their “inspired” words.

From which specific accessible perfect source or sources is it asserted that the 1611 KJV directly obtained this claimed continuing attribute or quality of inspiration? The fact that the KJV was actually made from multiple, imperfect, textually-varying sources makes it difficult if not impossible for KJV-only advocates to explain from which one specific OT source and from which one specific NT source the KJV is supposed to have obtained any continuing quality of inspiration.

No one branch (translation) can possibly be superior in authority to the tree itself. What sort of a good tree of Bibles would have only one good or one "perfect" branch? Can one branch of a tree that is still part of that tree be claimed to be alive if the trunk, roots, and other branches of that same tree are implied to be dead? A good tree would have many good branches with good fruit. The tree itself has to be good before it can bring forth good fruit on its branches. Can any one natural branch bring forth fruit that is contrary to the qualities of the fruit of the other natural branches of this same tree? All the natural branches of the same tree derive their qualities from the same identical source. No tree can give to its branches what it does not possess. If the tree or root is holy, all the branches are also holy (Rom. 11:16). The holiness and other qualities of one branch is of no other nature than that of all the other branches of the same tree. The innate, inherent, ingrained qualities or essential constitution of all the natural branches of one tree are the same. Thus, truth stated in God's Word indicates that whatever is affirmed of one branch must be affirmed concerning all the branches. Therefore, it would be unscriptural and contradictory to claim that one branch is holy and inspired but the other branches of the same tree are not. Is one branch superior and greater in authority than another branch? Two branches or even all the branches of the same tree that are claimed to have the same qualities as this tree are equal to each other. Two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Their own tree analogy confirms that there are major problems with a KJV-only view. Their own tree or stream argument proves more than they intended.

Any quality or attribute in the KJV would need to have already been in the earlier English Bibles of which it is a revision. If the attribute or quality was not already present in the family tree, it could not have been passed on to the branch. If the qualities were not already present in the trunk and tree [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages], how did they supposedly get into one natural branch of that tree? If the qualities were supposedly somewhat lacking in the other branches (the pre-1611 English Bibles), how were they transferred to a later branch (the KJV)?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Phil Stringer asserted:

Your quote stacking is essentially meaningless. It does not prove anything, nor does it clarify the text. It only adds noise.