Featured Please Show Scripture That Says...

That is a misrepresentation of what I said.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

 

That is not what I said.

 

OT scriptures were copied by scribes many many times and were still known as scripture to the church and the apostles.
What copy of scripture did Jesus read here in a synagogue?
Luke 4:21
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.

Jesus read that copy of scripture and called it scripture, not everyone can have an original copy can they

Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Just go and look at every time Jesus talks about scripture, so many people had copies of scripture, and Jesus never says what they had was not the word of God.

If you dont accept copies as scripture, then your making those copies of no effect, your nullifying all scrfipture.

 

He's making a strawman argument. Nobody has said the copies are not Scripture.

 

So you do not believe there are any copyist errors that must be dealt with in the versions we have today? Manuscripts differ. Which ones are inspired?

 

You completely ignored my argument and put forth a strawman.

You say what we have today is inspired. There are differences among manuscripts of the New Testament. So which manuscripts are inspired and which ones are not in your view and why?

 

Still waiting on you to actually answer my argument...apparently you can't.

 

Answer the argument. I'm not talking about which translations are better.

 

What do you mean by “inspired”?

Is every word “God-breathed” ... each word in every translation personally and specifically chosen by God ... or do you mean something else?

I just want to clearly understand your premise, since words can be such tricky things.

 

Your assertion is incorrect because you try to demand improperly that others prove a negative. You do not prove the positive form of your assertion to be stated in the Scriptures.

You do not practice what you preach since you do not show the scripture that says any translation of the Bible [made after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles] is made by the same process of inspiration or is given by direct inspiration of God.

You ignore and avoid the clear scriptural truths that conflict with your human opinions. You keep jumping to wrong conclusions, and you keep misrepresenting what others state.

 

''


This is hard to follow. You might have to dumb it down for me.

Also expect folks to comb through it like a smart-aleck lawyer.

Some things to consider:

The AUTHORS were inspired.

WORD =/= ALWAYS/ONLY WRITINGS

WORD could be a writing......not required to be, and if you get all deep n' mystical whereas even life could be a word, even God could be a word, Jesus is the word.

Smoke signals can be a word, a rubber band on your wrist can be a word.

Inspired vs Dictated

Even God is reported to have written scripture like 10 commandments but that isn't even included independently in canon of scripture, and there would be debate among Christians and among Jews as to what they are.

That like a cut above "inspired" He flat out authored it.

"Please show the scripture that says no translation of the bible can be inspired."

CAN vs ARE

Also you must identify what is scripture for example, The selection can be "inspired". The book of Yabadabadoo chapter 2 v14 no translation of the bible can be inspired. Can that verse be accepted?

Questioning what's presumed and taken for granted can be a good thing.

 

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations.

Would including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture? Are all Bible translations Scripture in the same sense (univocally)? If Bible translations cannot exist without the indispensable process of inspiration, then it would be necessary for all Bible translations to be made by it. If all Bible translations are Scripture given by inspiration of God, then none of them are not Scripture.

Steve Combs observed: “If 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to a copy or translation, then every time a translation is made, it is inspired, and every time a copy was made it was inspired” (Practical Theology, p. 35). Including all printed translations of Scripture would in effect make inspiration include any errors made by translators or printers and include the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying Bible translations in different languages. Thus, consistency and just measures in applying the word “all” to Bible translations would be a serious problem for exclusive KJV-only reasoning attempting to apply it selectively or particularly concerning only one English translation.

If the term Scripture in a univocal sense at 2 Timothy 3:16 is assumed to include Bible translations, KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it should apply only to the KJV and not also to the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and to post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV. Can a universal term be limited to only one particular thing made from it? Could some KJV-only advocates attempt to read into or to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16 a specific conclusion about translating that has not clearly and legitimately been shown to be actually stated or taught by the verse? Do KJV-only advocates attempt to go beyond what 2 Timothy 3:16 states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not directly and clearly refer? Could KJV-only advocate strain, stretch, or even possibly twist a verse to try to make it speak their own KJV-only sense or to fit their KJV-only scheme? The sixteenth verse of 2 Timothy did not actually directly assert that God gave all Bible translations or one English Bible translation by the process or method of inspiration.

Do KJV-only advocates use the term inspiration with one meaning (univocally) when they attempt to apply it to Bible translations? Do they use the term Bible translation with one meaning (univocally) if they attempt selectively to try to call one translation Scripture while denying the same for other English Bible translations? Do they attempt to read their own subjective, modern KJV-only opinions that were not in the mind of Paul into this verse? Did earlier subjective KJV-only opinions shape the later new KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Is the modern KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 possibly an example of eisegesis? Is this KJV-only interpretive result already found in the unproven KJV-only premise or premises with which the KJV-only reader began? Is every man teaching that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a reference to the KJV advocating a non-scriptural opinion of men? Could KJV-only advocates confuse what the text actually states and means with their way of reading it or into it? Are some KJV-only advocates setting up their own reason and private interpretation as the final canon of truth? Are some KJV-only advocates seeking to manufacture support in the Scriptures for certain non-scriptural, human dogma or tradition which they may have merely presumed or assumed by use of fallacies such as begging the question and have accepted without proper, consistent, sound scriptural support? KJV-only advocates do not prove that their KJV-only doctrine is found and taught in preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts or printed Greek NT editions. KJV-only advocates do not demonstrate that they soundly believe the Book when they merely read their own subjective KJV-only opinions into verses that do not directly state what they allege or assert.