Please Show Scripture That Says...

[SGO]

I don't need to show anything to show only the originals are inspired. It's a red herring nonsense discussion. It is common sense. If the translations are inspired, WHICH ones are inspired? All of them? Some of them? How do you choose which one is the "true" one, etc. It's nonsense.

So it is a red herring to ask scripture to be provided for a Christian belief?


"If the translations are inspired, WHICH ones are inspired? All of them? Some of them? How do you choose which one is the "true" one, etc. It's nonsense."

All or none are inspired?
None.
Then we do not have what the originals actually "said".

And this "scripture" is false:

The grass withereth,
the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

 

[Reformed1689]

So it is a red herring to ask scripture to be provided for a Christian belief?

That is a misrepresentation of what I said.

"If the translations are inspired, WHICH ones are inspired? All of them? Some of them? How do you choose which one is the "true" one, etc. It's nonsense."

All or none are inspired?
None.
Then we do not have what the originals actually "said".

And this "scripture" is false:

The grass withereth,
the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

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

 

[SGO]

You don't think anything we have now is inspired so for today this is not inspired:

The grass withereth,
the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

 

[Reformed1689]

You don't think anything we have now is inspired so for today this is not inspired:

That is not what I said.

 

[SGO]

You said only the originals are inspired.

The statement above cannot be found in the bible.

The bible is the word of God.

The word of God stands for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

The word of God is scripture.

All scripture is given by inspiration.
2 Timothy 3:16

Whatever translation you hold in your hand you cannot call scripture.
Call it a bible, religious writing, or something else.
Since all scripture is given by inspiration,
and the word of God stand for ever,
if you maintain "only the originals are inspired" then that book you read quite often is not inspired.
You cannot call that book you have "scripture."
It is not scripture because it is not the original. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
ONLY the ORIGINALS are inspired.
All we have now is copies, right?
Copies are not scripture because scripture is inspired and ONLY the originals are inspired.

 

[Scott Downey]

You said only the originals are inspired.

The statement above cannot be found in the bible.

The bible is the word of God.

The word of God stands for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

The word of God is scripture.

All scripture is given by inspiration.
2 Timothy 3:16

Whatever translation you hold in your hand you cannot call scripture.
Call it a bible, religious writing, or something else.
Since all scripture is given by inspiration,
and the word of God stand for ever,
if you maintain "only the originals are inspired" then that book you read quite often is not inspired.
You cannot call that book you have "scripture."
It is not scripture because it is not the original. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
ONLY the ORIGINALS are inspired.
All we have now is copies, right?
Copies are not scripture because scripture is inspired and ONLY the originals are inspired.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[SGO]

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

You have (said the copies are not Scripture) by saying only the originals are inspired.
God does nor err but men do.
By your argument any multi generational copy or translation is bound to have errors so they cannot be inspired.
A translation cannot be the word of God for it is not the original and ONLY the originals are inspired.
Cannot have a cake and eat it too.
You say my cake is made of straw but I have and eat of "my" cake.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and the word of God shall stand for ever.

Oh, I believe in the preservation of scripture so then it is NOT only the originals that are inspired.

Who preserved it?
The word of God shall stand for ever.

 

[Reformed1689]

You have (said the copies are not Scripture) by saying only the originals are inspired.
God does nor err but men do.
By your argument any multi generational copy or translation is bound to have errors so they cannot be inspired.
A translation cannot be the word of God for it is not the original and ONLY the originals are inspired.
Cannot have a cake and eat it too.
You say my cake is made of straw but I have and eat of "my" cake.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and the word of God shall stand for ever.

Oh, I believe in the preservation of scripture so then it is NOT only the originals that are inspired.

Who preserved it?
The word of God shall stand for ever.

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?

 

[SGO]

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?

If only the originals are inspired then no translation or copy we have today is inspired.

You could even say that for the copies of the Old Testament they used in writing the New Testament.

And the ones Timothy's grandma used to teach him while he was growing up.

And the parchments Paul asked for.

I mean they called them scripture didn't they?

The New Testament writers were led by the Holy Spirit of Christ weren't they?

And the quotes they used and changed slightly at times were inspired, right?

But we do not have any Old Testament or New Testament originals now.

So if only the originals are inspired nothing we have is inspired.

God does not make good on His promise that the word of God stands for ever.

All scripture is given by inspiration is only good for the originals according to many folk today.

So that leaves a trust issue wouldn't you say?

Only the original word of God stands for ever.

We don't have the originals so God put His word standing in a forgotten corner of heaven or buried upright some place.
Yes, that is ridiculous.

We are saved because the Holy Spirit of Christ touched our hearts through the living word of God.

Which ones are inspired?
Didn't you say only the originals are inspired?
If you are so sure about that (but cannot provide supporting bible verses)
why are you asking me?

 

[Reformed1689]

If only the originals are inspired then no translation or copy we have today is inspired.

You could even say that for the copies of the Old Testament they used in writing the New Testament.

And the ones Timothy used that grandma taught him growing up.

And the parchments Paul asked for.

I mean they called them scripture didn't they?

The New Testament writers were led by the Holy Spirit of Christ weren't they?

We do not have any Old Testament or New Testament originals now.

So if only the originals are inspired nothing we have is inspired.

God does not make good on His promise that the word of God stands for ever.

All scripture is given by inspiration is only good for the originals according to many folk today.

So that leaves a trust issue wouldn't you say?

Only the original word of God stands for ever.

We don't have the originals so God put His word standing in a forgotten corner of heaven or buried upright some place.
Yes, that is ridiculous.

We are saved because the Holy Spirit of Christ touched our hearts through the living word of God.

Which ones are inspired?
Didn't you say only the originals are inspired?
If you are so sure about that (but cannot provide supporting bible verses)
why are you asking me?

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?

 

[SGO]

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?

Reformed1689,

I had a spiritual experience last July that made me change the version of the bible I read.
I came to this forum in search of defenses for that version.
I was told not to promote that version "or there will be consequences."
I Ilke this forum so much that I decided to stay if possible and research what is said here regarding translations and look at other topics too.
Seems to me "only the originals are inspired" is a weak argument when it comes to providing verses to support it.
Outside of having the bible actually say it, the arguments make sense to me but that is no proof in the pudding.

I don't want to talk about specific versions but about all the versions in any language.

Most bibles translate Isaiah 40:8 something like:

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God shall stand forever.

don't they?

What does stand for ever mean then if it's not inspired?
Is it some figurative notion?

How can any bible change lives if not inspired?
All those different translations that the Holy Spirit of Christ uses to convince people that they are sinners and need God's precious blood of atonement, and that Jesus Christ, a Jewish carpenter, died for their sins and rose from the dead, and is actually alive now and for ever sounds like fantasy unless when presented or preached something happens to change minds. That to me means the words are somehow inspired.

Doesn't the bible say for itself that it is a living book?

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged 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.
Hebrews 4:12


The degree of inspiration for each translation is another subject isn't it? and I am not the one who determines that degree even for discussion's sake.

I only know for myself that something happened to me.

 

[Reformed1689]

Reformed1689,

I had a spiritual experience last July that made me change the version of the bible I read.
I came to this forum in search of defenses for that version.
I was told not to promote that version "or there will be consequences."
I Ilke this forum so much that I decided to stay if possible and research what is said here regarding translations and look at other topics too.
Seems to me "only the originals are inspired" is a weak argument when it comes to providing verses to support it.
Outside of having the bible actually say it, the arguments make sense to me but that is no proof in the pudding.

I don't want to talk about specific versions but about all the versions in any language.

Most bibles translate Isaiah 40:8 something like:

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God shall stand forever.

don't they?

What does stand for ever mean then if it's not inspired?
Is it some figurative notion?

How can any bible change lives if not inspired?
All those different translations that the Holy Spirit of Christ uses to convince people that they are sinners and need God's precious blood of atonement, and that Jesus Christ, a Jewish carpenter, died for their sins and rose from the dead, and is actually alive now and for ever sounds like fantasy unless when presented or preached something happens to change minds. That to me means the words are somehow inspired.

Doesn't the bible say for itself that it is a living book?

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged 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.
Hebrews 4:12


The degree of inspiration for each translation is another subject isn't it? and I am not the one who determines that degree even for discussion's sake.

I only know for myself that something happened to me.

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

 

[SGO]

Look, this is what this thread is about,

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

You said something to the effect that only the originals are inspired.
So you show without scripture that all of them are not inspired.

... the word of our God shall stand for ever

says the inspired word stands for ever because Isaiah 40:8 is a quote from God.

You want to debate your question about which translations are better or more inspired than the others then open another thread.

 

[Reformed1689]

Look, this is what this thread is about,

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

You said something to the effect that only the originals are inspired.
So you show without scripture that all of them are not inspired.

... the word of our God shall stand for ever

says the inspired word stands for ever because Isaiah 40:8 is a quote from God.

You want to debate your question about which translations are better or more inspired than the others then open another thread.

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

 

[atpollard]

All or none are inspired?

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Look, this is what this thread is about,

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

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.

 

[utilyan]

... no translation of the bible can be inspired.
Thank you.

''


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.

 

[SGO]

Well it seems you all know the rules of debate much better than I know them.

The only thing I do know is the the bible, commonly known as the word of God, but apparently questioned all the time by people claiming to be believers of it, changed my life.

Yes you are all smarter than me.
Yes I miss the errors in my statements and keep stumbling on happily in the word.

One thing you cannot prove from the bible is that only the originals are inspired and inspiration is only limited to the originals.

Doesn't God work in your lives every day?
Oh, how silly and stupid of me to ask a question like that.

It can't be from a book which is translated from relatively young copies (gone through countless generations).
That notion is absurd.
God by His Spirit of a resurrected Christ touches you through them.

But only the originals are inspired and His touching us with words on paper has little or NOTHING to do with that.

Your arguments show how independent you are.

I consider it a miracle that God has preserved His inspired word through the centuries.

I do not know how He did so.

The machinations of getting the manuscripts together and determining which ones are valid then putting them in other languages trying to decide which words best express what is said in copies is way beyond me.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

[Logos1560]

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.