Questions for a derived inspiration argument

[Logos1560]

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many accurately translated words in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible have derived inspiration even if some of those words were changed, revised, or omitted in the 1611 KJV?

If some accurately translated words in the 1560 Geneva Bible were changed in the 1611 KJV to less accurately translated words, do those changed words still have derived inspiration?

If some accurately translated words in the 1560 Geneva Bible were omitted in the 1611 KJV, do those accurately translated Geneva Bible words still have derived inspiration even if not found in the KJV?

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many words that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament have derived inspiration before they were put into the 1611 KJV?

When the fact remains that there were multiple varying pre-1611 English Bibles with many accurately translated words and thus derived inspired words, how did readers decide which English Bible was correct according to the derived inspiration argument?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the hundreds and thousands of added words in the KJV for which its makers had no original-language words of Scripture have derived inspiration?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do the around 190 whole English words not found in the original 1611 KJV edition that were added in later KJV editions have derived inspiration?

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the words in the original 1611 edition of the KJV that later editors/printers removed have derived inspiration, meaning that present KJV editions would be missing some inspired words?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the original-language words of Scripture in the KJV's underlying texts for which the 1611 edition and later KJV editions give no English word/rendering lose their inspiration when they were omitted?

 

[Mike B]

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many accurately translated words in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible have derived inspiration even if some of those words were changed, revised, or omitted in the 1611 KJV?

Derived inspiration? How could anybody possibly know the answer to that question?

I believe God inspires what/who He chooses to, and we do know that the originals were
given by God's inspiration. Beyond that, who could truly know if God chose to inspire
any of the translations, and If He did, what could be the proof of that?

That is the question we should be asking.

People who do bible translations should be Christians as well as linguists, and as such they would
be, no doubt, praying and seeking God's will in their translation work.

What standard could be used to determine if God chose to inspire them....or not?

 

[Van]

As a cessionalist, I believe God has provided His word, and it is sufficient for the lost, with the help of born anew and indwelt believers, to find and embrace Christ. Those that claim their interpretation is inspired and therefore must be accepted over the best effort of others, seem like snake-oil salesmen to me.

There is no doubt in my mind that the body of Christ is riddled with factions, driven by differing understandings of God's word, but the way back to unity is through mutual agreement after sharing our study and listening carefully and prayerfully to those who believe differently. The my way or the highway folks seem to have quenched the Spirit of Unity.

 

[Logos1560]

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 so that translations can supposedly have derived inspiration?

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 these varying 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 inspired 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.

Could the adjectival participial phrase [“given by inspiration of God”] simply present the means whereby the process takes place instead of presenting a quality or attribute?

The Bible did not say that inspiration was a quality or attribute that God breathed into or in Scripture. The Scriptures indicate that God breathed out the words to the prophets and apostles or that the words proceeded out of the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles. The specific exact words that God breathed out to the prophets and apostles are the original-language words of Scripture.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Francis Turretin: “Although we give to the Scriptures Absolute Integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were Inspired (theopneustos), but only that the Providence of God Watched Over the copying of the Sacred Books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the Manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves).

"Therefore the Foundation of the Purity and Integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault of men, but in the Providence of God, which (however men employed in Transcribing the Sacred Books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in Purity.”

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many accurately translated words in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible have derived inspiration even if some of those words were changed, revised, or omitted in the 1611 KJV?

Preservation: The Conservation of Scripture.​

All quotes are from: Inspiration and Preservation: Distinct Acts, Inseparable Ends - Confessional Bibliology

"Preservation answers a different question: What does God do with the Scripture He Produced? He conserves its text through history for the office assigned to it. The divine act is providential rather than a repeated act of immediate inspiration.

"Westminster Confession 1.8 states the distinction in one grammatical chain. Its subject is “The Old Testament in Hebrew” and “the New Testament in Greek.” These Scriptures are said first to be “Immediately Inspired by God” and then, “by his singular Care and Providence,” to have been “Kept Pure in all ages.” They “are therefore Authentical.”2

"Immediate Inspiration and Providential Keeping are different predicates of the same Scriptures.

"The word Immediately identifies the source of Scripture’s Authority. No church, tradition, or translator mediates between God’s Authorship and the Inspired text. The words Care and Providence identify the mode of their Continuance. God Employs secondary causes: copying, custody, reading, comparison, correction, printing, Translation, and scholarship. The later instruments act according to their created natures. They may work carefully or carelessly, faithfully or sinfully. Providence Governs them without turning them into Inspired authors.

"The Westminster Doctrine of Providence makes this possible. God Directs and Governs all creatures, actions, and things according to His Wise and Holy Counsel. With respect to His Decree, events Occur Immutably and Infallibly; yet He Orders them according to the nature of secondary causes, which act necessarily, freely, or contingently. In His Ordinary Providence He Makes use of means, while remaining Free to Work without, above, or against them.3

"Thus two descriptions may be True at once. A scribe copied a manuscript freely and with ordinary skill. God Preserved His Word through that copying. A careless scribe omitted a line. God Permitted and Bounded that fault while Preserving the omitted words in other witnesses and Supplying means of detection. The first statement concerns a creaturely cause; the second concerns the Divine Government under which the creature acts. They are not rival explanations.

"Preservation Guarantees the Success of God’s Purpose, not the impeccability of each instrument. The difference is fundamental. If the Promise were that every act of copying would be errorless, one demonstrable scribal fault would overthrow it. But the Reformed claim concerns the Conservation of the text in and among the witnesses God Governs. A defective reproduction at one point is a fact to be recognized and corrected, not a new Inspired reading and not proof that Scripture as a whole has disappeared."

If some accurately translated words in the 1560 Geneva Bible were changed in the 1611 KJV to less accurately translated words, do those changed words still have derived inspiration?

"Distinct in Mode."​

"The Two Doctrines may be compared directly."

Question	Inspiration	Preservation
What is the immediate object?	Production of the God-breathed writings	Conservation of the text produced
Where is its historical locus?	Prophetic and apostolic inscription	The subsequent life of Scripture in history
Who are the human instruments?	Inspired authors and their authorized assistants	Scribes, readers, churches, printers, editors, translators, and scholars
What is the mode?	Immediate divine authorship through human authors	Providential government ordinarily through means
What is the result?	An inerrant and authoritative verbal text	The continued presence and authority of that text
Must every instrument be errorless?	The scriptural product is wholly God-breathed	No; transmissional agents and particular witnesses remain fallible

"These distinctions answer the familiar question, “If God preserved Scripture, why did copyists make mistakes?” The question assumes that Preservation can succeed only by reproducing the mode of Inspiration. But God often secures Infallible Ends through fallible means. His Decree does not make every human judgment correct, any more than His Providential Government of history makes every human act Righteous.

"The Biblical history itself displays the difference. When Jehoiakim cut and burned Jeremiah’s roll, the destruction was wicked. God then Commanded Jeremiah to take another roll and dictate the former words again, adding further Words ofJjudgment (Jer. 36:27–32). The first roll was not physically indestructible, and the king’s action did not become Inspired because it fell within Providence. Yet God’s Purpose for His Prophetic Word was not defeated. In Jeremiah’s special Prophetic circumstance the text was Restored through renewed Revelation; later transmission ordinarily proceeds by copying and comparison rather than by new Prophetic dictation. The episode illustrates Divine Sovereignty without erasing the Moral and Causal differences among the instruments.

"Likewise, copies of the law were to be made and used after Moses. The king was commanded to write or obtain a copy and read it throughout his life (Deut. 17:18–20). The Authority of that copy did not arise from a new Inspiration of the royal scribe. It arose from the law it faithfully presented. The act of copying was ordinary; the text copied remained the Extraordinary Word of God."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

If some accurately translated words in the 1560 Geneva Bible were omitted in the 1611 KJV, do those accurately translated Geneva Bible words still have derived inspiration even if not found in the KJV?

"Inseparable in Divine Purpose."​

"Distinction does not mean separation. Scripture was inspired for continuing Ends. John wrote that later readers might believe and have life in Christ’s Name (John 20:30–31). Paul said that earlier writings were written “for our learning,” that through their patience and comfort the church might have Hope (Rom. 15:4). Timothy’s Scriptures were able to make him wise unto Salvation and to Furnish the man of God Completely for every Good Work (2 Tim. 3:15–17). Revelation Blesses the one who reads and those who hear and keep its Words (Rev. 1:3).

"These offices extend beyond the moment at which ink first met parchment. God Intended the Written Word to Teach people separated from the authors by place and time. The Inspiration of a Permanent Written Rule and the Providential Conservation of thatRrule therefore belong to One Divine Economy. Preservation is not contained in the definition of Inspiration, but it follows from God’s Revealed Purpose for the Inspired Product together with His Faithfulness and Providence.

"Turretin expressed the logic when he argued that God Chose Writing so the Word might be Kept Pure and Whole, Defended against corruption, and Transmitted to future generations. The church, he said, cannot now exist without Scripture because God has Bound it to the Written Rule.4

"If the Rule were wholly lost, the Divine Arrangement would fail at precisely the point for which Writing was Appointed.

"Owen pressed the same connection. He Placed together the Immediate Divine Origin of Scripture, its Preservation from destructive alteration, the continued Integrity of the Original-Language Word, and its Manifestation in Faithful Translations. His question was practical and theological: what benefit would the church possess from an Inspired Word if it had no assurance that the whole Word remained available?5 He did not infer that every copyist was Inspired. He argued that the Purpose of Inspiration and the Fidelity of God forbid the conclusion that the Authentic Word Entrusted to the church has vanished.

"Gaussen, writing later, likewise connected Christ’s Care for the initial Giving of the Canonical writings with their transmission. His Formulation must be read in its nineteenth-century setting, but the basic point is sound: it would be incoherent to praise Divine Care in Producing an Errorless Revelation while treating its subsequent disappearance as religiously indifferent. The Lord Gave Scripture for His people and Governs its history for them.6

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many words that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament have derived inspiration before they were put into the 1611 KJV?

Promise, Purpose, and Providential Continuity​

The inseparable relation should not be framed as though theologians reasoned only from a general expectation that God probably would Preserve whatever He Inspired. The argument is Covenantal and Scriptural. God Identifies the written Word as an Enduring Witness, Commands its use by later generations, Assigns it Continuing Offices, and Promises the Perpetuity of his Word. Those Revealed Purposes are then understood within the Doctrine of Providence. The Lord Who Appoints an End also Governs the means by which that End is Reached.

This order guards against two shortcuts. The first begins with an abstract claim about Divine Power: God could Keep every copyist from error, therefore He must have Done so. Divine Ability does not tell us which mode God Chose. He could Preserve Scripture in a single Indestructible codex, Redictate it to every generation, or cause every press to print without a typographical error. The history of the text shows that He Chose none of those modes. The Doctrine must follow His Revealed Promise and Observed Providential Means, not an imagined method derived from bare Omnipotence.

"The second shortcut begins with the imperfections of the means and limits the end accordingly. Copyists are fallible; manuscripts differ; therefore, it is said, the church can possess only a probable approximation to theIinspired text.

"But the weakness of a secondary cause does not set the measure of God’s Decree. Scripture repeatedly presents Divine Purposes accomplished through instruments that, considered in themselves, are limited and liable to fail. The question is not whether scribes possess enough inherent power to Preserve God’s Word. It is whether God has Governed the whole history of those instruments so that His Appointed Word remains.

"Providential continuity is thus corporate and historical. No single scribe needs to bear the entire promise. No one manuscript must contain every Inspired book or escape every local error. No one congregation must possess all extant evidence.

"God can Preserve through the multiplication of witnesses, the public use of Scripture, the distribution of copies among churches, and the comparison by which one witness exposes a fault in another. The unity lies in the Divine Purpose Governing the many means.

"This also explains why Preservation can be certain without making every textual judgment equally certain. The general conclusion rests upon God’s Promise and the public presence of the Scriptural Tradition. A particular reading may require a distinct act of judgment concerning historical evidence. That judgment can be strong, weak, or temporarily unresolved without converting the whole text into an unresolved hypothesis. We know that a city exists before we have settled the exact line of every property within it. The analogy is limited, but it illustrates the difference between certainty concerning an object and exhaustive certainty concerning every question about it.

"Inspiration and Preservation consequently support different forms of Confession. Concerning Inspiration, the church says that the Scripture God Produced is wholly True and Authoritative in all that it affirms. Concerning Preservation, the church says that this Inspired Scripture has not passed out of the church’s possession but remains in the authentic Hebrew and Greek text and subsequent faithful Translations. Concerning a difficult variant, the church may say, with appropriate humility, that further comparison is needed. The third statement does not revoke the first two.

"The distinction also gives scholarship its proper dignity.

"If Preservation meant Repeated Inspiration (Ruckmanite King James Onlyism Error), historical study would be unnecessary or impious: one would simply identify the newly Inspired edition.

"If the text were lost in principle, (Reconstructionist Error) scholarship would become a creative magistrate charged with Reconstructing an absent norm.

"Under Providential Preservation, scholarship is ministerial. It works upon witnesses to a text already Conserved by God, seeking to identify more clearly what those witnesses bear. Its judgments are corrigible because its agents are not Inspired; its labor is meaningful because its object is not gone."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

When the fact remains that there were multiple varying pre-1611 English Bibles with many accurately translated words and thus derived inspired words, how did readers decide which English Bible was correct according to the derived inspiration argument?

The Authority in a Faithful Copy.​

If a copy is not Inspired, in what sense may it be called the Word of God? The answer requires a distinction between the act of copying and the text copied.

Consider a faithful sentence in a Greek manuscript: “In the beginning was the Word.” The scribe’s act of placing those characters on parchment was not Inspired. Yet the sentence presented is the Inspired text of John 1:1. Its Authority is not a new Authority Conferred upon it by the copyist. It is the Authority of the DivineDdiscourse Faithfully Exhibited in the copy.

This is why Scripture can be truly encountered in fallible witnesses. A Manuscript does not cease to contain God’s Word because its scribe misspelled a name elsewhere. Neither does a scribal addition gain Divine Authority merely because it occupies the same page. The Inspired text is Authoritative; fidelity makes the copy a true witness to it; departure from that text is corrigible and carries no Authority from God.

"The same relation applies, with another degree of mediation, to Translation. Gill denied that Translators were Inspired while affirming the real usefulness and rule-like Authority of faithful Translations insofar as they agree with the Originals.

"He could therefore honor the English Bible and also insist that it be examined and corrected by the Hebrew and Greek.7

"Denying Translation Inspiration turns every vernacular Bible into religiously inert human literature. Translation Inspiration locates its Authority properly in the Word it Conveys."

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the hundreds and thousands of added words in the KJV for which its makers had no original-language words of Scripture have derived inspiration?

"Two Opposite Errors."​

"The first error is Preservation by Re-inspiration. It may attach Inspiration to a particular manuscript family, printed edition, or Translation. This promises an easy certainty, but at the cost of changing the Doctrine. Scripture nowhere says that the Spirit would Repeat the Prophetic Mode in a sixteenth-century editor or a seventeenth-century Translating Company.

"The claim also makes ordinary printing differences and acknowledged editorial corrections theologically disastrous. A Preserved text does not need a second Pentecost of inscription.

"The opposite error is Inspiration without an enduring object. On this account, Inspiration guarantees only the vanished Autographs. Copies provide increasingly probable access, but no present text can be called Authentic except provisionally.

"The practical rule becomes a scholarly Reconstruction whose wording is always subject in principle to a future tribunal.

"That model preserves an event in the past but weakens the continuing office for which the event occurred. The church is not Commanded finally to appeal to inaccessible artifacts. It is Commanded to hear the Spirit Speaking in Scripture. Westminster therefore moves from Inspiration through Providential keeping to Present Authenticity. The chain does not make scholars infallible; it gives their work an antecedently preserved object."

According to the derived inspiration argument, do the around 190 whole English words not found in the original 1611 KJV edition that were added in later KJV editions have derived inspiration?

"Inspiration and Preservation are Distinct Divine Acts
Ordered to an Inseparable End.

"By Inspiration, the Holy Spirit Produced the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures as the wholly True, Authoritative, verbal Word of God. By Preservation, God Governs the subsequent history of that Word so that the text once Given remains the church’s Authentic Rule.

"Inspiration is not repeated in scribes, printers, editors, or Translators; Preservation does not require their personal infallibility. Yet the one God who gave Scripture for an abiding office does not allow the Purpose of that Gift to fail.

"Confusion at either point produces serious error. If Preservation is treated as continuing Inspiration, every favored copy, edition, or Translation may be elevated beyond correction. If Inspiration is isolated from Preservation, the church may confess a Perfect text that Performed its work only at the moment of composition and then became partially lost behind the fallible history of its witnesses. The Reformed Doctrine rejects both moves. It distinguishes the manner in which Scripture was first Produced from the manner in which it is Kept, while joining both under the Wise Purpose and Faithful Providence of God."

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the words in the original 1611 edition of the KJV that later editors/printers removed have derived inspiration, meaning that present KJV editions would be missing some inspired words?

"One Word, Two Divine Works."​

"Inspiration and Preservation must therefore be neither confused nor divided. Inspiration produced Scripture and ended with the completion of the Canonical Writings. Preservation continues through God’s Government of their history. The former secures the Divine Origin and complete Truth of the text; the latter secures its Continuing Presence, Power, and Office. The fallibility of later agents belongs to the manner of Preservation, not to a defect in the Word God Preserves.

"This distinction prepares the next question. Even if the Inspired text continues, how do we distinguish the identity of the Canonical Books, the identity of their Words, and the church’s recognition of both? Canon, text, and recognition share One Divine Purpose, but they are not one and the same question."

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the original-language words of Scripture in the KJV's underlying texts for which the 1611 edition and later KJV editions give no English word/rendering lose their inspiration when they were omitted?

"Inspiration: The Production of Scripture"​

"Inspiration answers a question of Origin: Why is Holy Scripture the Word of God? The answer is not that the church approved it, that its authors possessed religious genius, or that later readers found it useful.

“All scripture is given by Inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). The Writings are God-breathed.

"Their Authority rests wholly upon God, the Author Who Speaks through them.

"Peter describes the Prophetic Process from the side of the human instruments. Prophecy “came not in old time by the will of man,” but Holy men spoke from God as they were Carried along by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 1:20–21). The writers were real authors, not lifeless pens. Their vocabularies, styles, historical circumstances, research, and Pastoral aims remain visible. Yet the Controlling Source of the Prophetic Word was not their independent will. The Spirit so Governed their writing that the Resulting Scripture says what God Intended."

"This Divine Authorship extends to verbal form. God did not Supply uncertain ideas that the writers might clothe well or badly.

"Moses was Commanded to write “these Words” (Exod. 34:27).

"David said, “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and His Word was in my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:2). Paul taught truths in Words Supplied by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 2:13).

"John Gill therefore argued that if the writers had received only matter while being left to find their own possibly inadequate terms, the church could be uncertain about the Spirit’s intended sense.

"Words as well as matter belong to Inspiration.1

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

When the fact remains that there were multiple varying pre-1611 English Bibles with many accurately translated words and thus derived inspired words, how did readers decide which English Bible was correct according to the derived inspiration argument?

The Authority in a Faithful Copy.​

If a copy is not Inspired, in what sense may it be called the Word of God?
The answer requires a distinction between the act of copying and the text copied.

Consider a faithful sentence in a Greek manuscript: “In the beginning was the Word.” The scribe’s act of placing those characters on parchment was not Inspired. Yet the sentence presented is the Inspired text of John 1:1. Its Authority is not a new Authority Conferred upon it by the copyist. It is the Authority of the Divine Discourse Faithfully Exhibited in the copy.

This is why Scripture can be truly encountered in fallible witnesses. A Manuscript does not cease to contain God’s Word because its scribe misspelled a name elsewhere. Neither does a scribal addition gain Divine Authority merely because it occupies the same page. The Inspired text is Authoritative; fidelity makes the copy a true witness to it; departure from that text is corrigible and carries no Authority from God.

"The same relation applies, with another degree of mediation, to Translation. Gill denied that Translators were Inspired while affirming the real usefulness and rule-like Authority of faithful Translations insofar as they agree with the Originals.

"He could therefore honor the English Bible and also insist that it be examined and corrected by the Hebrew and Greek.7

"Denying Translation Inspiration turns every vernacular Bible into religiously inert human literature. Translation Inspiration locates its Authority properly in the Word it Conveys."

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the hundreds and thousands of added words in the KJV for which its makers had no original-language words of Scripture have derived inspiration?

"Two Opposite Errors."​

"The first error is Preservation by Re-inspiration. It may attach Inspiration to a particular manuscript family, printed edition, or Translation. This promises an easy certainty, but at the cost of changing the Doctrine. Scripture nowhere says that the Spirit would Repeat the Prophetic Mode in a sixteenth-century editor or a seventeenth-century Translating Company.

"The claim also makes ordinary printing differences and acknowledged editorial corrections theologically disastrous. A Preserved text does not need a second Pentecost of inscription.

"The opposite error is Inspiration without an enduring object. On this account, Inspiration guarantees only the vanished Autographs. Copies provide increasingly probable access, but no present text can be called Authentic except provisionally.

"The practical rule becomes a scholarly Reconstruction whose wording is always subject in principle to a future tribunal.

"That model preserves an event in the past but weakens the continuing office for which the event occurred. The church is not Commanded finally to appeal to inaccessible artifacts. It is Commanded to hear the Spirit Speaking in Scripture. Westminster therefore moves from Inspiration through Providential keeping to Present Authenticity. The chain does not make scholars infallible; it gives their work an antecedently preserved object."

According to the derived inspiration argument, do the around 190 whole English words not found in the original 1611 KJV edition that were added in later KJV editions have derived inspiration?

"Inspiration and Preservation are Distinct Divine Acts
Ordered to an Inseparable End.

"By Inspiration, the Holy Spirit Produced the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures as the wholly True, Authoritative, verbal Word of God. By Preservation, God Governs the subsequent history of that Word so that the text once Given remains the church’s Authentic Rule.

"Inspiration is not repeated in scribes, printers, editors, or Translators; Preservation does not require their personal infallibility. Yet the one God who gave Scripture for an abiding office does not allow the Purpose of that Gift to fail.

"Confusion at either point produces serious error. If Preservation is treated as continuing Inspiration, every favored copy, edition, or Translation may be elevated beyond correction. If Inspiration is isolated from Preservation, the church may confess a Perfect text that Performed its work only at the moment of composition and then became partially lost behind the fallible history of its witnesses. The Reformed Doctrine rejects both moves. It distinguishes the manner in which Scripture was first Produced from the manner in which it is Kept, while Joining both under the Wise Purpose and Faithful Providence of God."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the words in the original 1611 edition of the KJV that later editors/printers removed have derived inspiration, meaning that present KJV editions would be missing some inspired words?

"One Word, Two Divine Works."​

"Inspiration and Preservation must therefore be neither confused nor divided. Inspiration produced Scripture and ended with the completion of the Canonical Writings. Preservation continues through God’s Government of their history. The former secures the Divine Origin and complete Truth of the text; the latter secures its Continuing Presence, Power, and Office. The fallibility of later agents belongs to the manner of Preservation, not to a defect in the Word God Preserves.

"This distinction prepares the next question. Even if the Inspired text continues, how do we distinguish the identity of the Canonical Books, the identity of their Words, and the church’s recognition of both? Canon, text, and recognition share One Divine Purpose, but they are not one and the same question."

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the original-language words of Scripture in the KJV's underlying texts for which the 1611 edition and later KJV editions give no English word/rendering lose their inspiration when they were omitted?

"Inspiration: The Production of Scripture"​

"Inspiration answers a question of Origin: Why is Holy Scripture the Word of God? The answer is not that the church approved it, that its authors possessed religious genius, or that later readers found it useful. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). The writings are God-breathed.

"Their Authority rests wholly upon God, the Author Who Speaks through them.

"Peter describes the Prophetic Process from the side of the human instruments. Prophecy “came not in old time by the will of man,” but Holy men spoke from God as they were Carried along by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 1:20–21). The writers were real authors, not lifeless pens. Their vocabularies, styles, historical circumstances, research, and Pastoral aims remain visible. Yet the Controlling Source of the Prophetic Word was not their independent will. The Spirit so Governed their writing that the Resulting Scripture says what God Intended."

"This Divine Authorship extends to verbal form. God did not supply uncertain ideas that the writers might clothe well or badly. Moses was Commanded to write “these words” (Exod. 34:27).

"David said, “The Spirit of the LORD Spake by me, and His Word was in my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:2).

"Paul taught truths in Words Supplied by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 2:13).

"John Gill therefore argued that if the writers had received only matter while being left to find their own possibly inadequate terms, the church could be uncertain about the Spirit’s intended sense. Words as well as matter belong to Inspiration.1

 

[Logos1560]

"Inspiration is not repeated in scribes, printers, editors, or Translators; Preservation does not require their personal infallibility. Yet the one God who gave Scripture for an abiding office does not allow the Purpose of that Gift to fail.

"Confusion at either point produces serious error. If Preservation is treated as continuing Inspiration, every favored copy, edition, or Translation may be elevated beyond correction. If Inspiration is isolated from Preservation, the church may confess a Perfect text that Performed its work only at the moment of composition and then became partially lost behind the fallible history of its witnesses. The Reformed Doctrine rejects both moves. It distinguishes the manner in which Scripture was first Produced from the manner in which it is Kept, while Joining both under the Wise Purpose and Faithful Providence of God."

Yes, inspiration answers a question of origin. The process of copying the Scriptures and the process of translating the Scriptures were not the same as the different process of giving all Scripture or God breathing out the words to the prophets and apostles.

Your posts and position seem sometimes to confuse inspiration and preservation. Some KJV-only teaching treats preservation as "continuing inspiration." You try to defend or advocate some typical KJV-only conclusions without presenting any sound arguments that would lead to those conclusions. You repeat the same claims over and over without clearly answering my actual questions concerning your unclear view.

You claim derived inspiration for the KJV without clearly demonstrating from the Scriptures that a post-NT translation would have any continuing quality of inspiration. You sometimes contradict your own inconsistent claims.

Is not an appeal to derived inspiration a selective attempt to try inconsistently to link the origin of one post-NT translation in Early Modern English [the KJV] directly to the miracle of the giving of all Scripture by inspiration to the prophets and apostles while attempting to deny the same thing for the word of God translated into present-day standard English?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Have you ever had the opportunity to review some of the two hundred and fifty to a thousand Old Testament Passages when they are quoted in the New Testament and how they determine for us God's Criteria and standards, of equal weights and measures, for how He Views variant readings, on the subject of Inspiration?

I can see where you might be upset that Luke 2 omits "a tenth of an ephah", from Leviticus 5.

"But if he cannot afford two turtledoves or two pigeons,
then he shall bring as his offering for the sin that he has committed
a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering.
He shall put no oil on it and shall put no frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering." Leviticus 5:11.

"and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord,
“a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." Luke 2:24.

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many accurately translated words in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible have derived inspiration even if some of those words were changed, revised, or omitted in the 1611 KJV?

If some accurately translated words in the 1560 Geneva Bible were changed in the 1611 KJV to less accurately translated words, do those changed words still have derived inspiration?

If some accurately translated words in the 1560 Geneva Bible were omitted in the 1611 KJV, do those accurately translated Geneva Bible words still have derived inspiration even if not found in the KJV?

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the many words that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament have derived inspiration before they were put into the 1611 KJV?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the hundreds and thousands of added words in the KJV for which its makers had no original-language words of Scripture have derived inspiration?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do the around 190 whole English words not found in the original 1611 KJV edition that were added in later KJV editions have derived inspiration?

According to the derived inspiration argument, did the words in the original 1611 edition of the KJV that later editors/printers removed have derived inspiration, meaning that present KJV editions would be missing some inspired words?

According to the derived inspiration argument, do all the original-language words of Scripture in the KJV's underlying texts for which the 1611 edition and later KJV editions give no English word/rendering lose their inspiration when they were omitted?

When the fact remains that there were multiple varying pre-1611 English Bibles with many accurately translated words and thus derived inspired words, how did readers decide which English Bible was correct according to the derived inspiration argument?

Right is Right, if the Stars Fall. You could catch onto something here, if God Permits your eyes and ears to be Opened.

Inspiration does not always follow along in the same set of tracks. But thank God it follows nonetheless.

AND WE HAVE IT. COMPLETE INSPIRED BIBLES (those that are complete anyway).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Yes, inspiration answers a question of origin. The process of copying the Scriptures and the process of translating the Scriptures were not the same as the different process of giving all Scripture or God breathing out the words to the prophets and apostles.

Miraculous Immediate Inspiration answers the question of the Origin Process.

Providentially Derived Inspiration answers the question of its Subsequent Productions, or Publications.

"The process of copying the Scriptures and the process of translating the Scriptures", while Prayerfully approached Invoking God's Blessing and Guidance when they are Faithfully copied or Translated, as an Act of Spiritual endeavor, the use of the term 'Inspired' with regard to copies or Translations, or Translators, and even Bible Writers is Irrelevant, since the Miraculous Immediate Inspiration is Providentially Derived by the Preserved copies and Translations.

It can not be otherwise. "Agape" and "love" with respect to God's Revelation to Mankind are both Inspirered.

Get used to it.

Your posts and position seem sometimes to confuse inspiration and preservation. Some KJV-only teaching treats preservation as "continuing inspiration." You try to defend or advocate some typical KJV-only conclusions without presenting any sound arguments that would lead to those conclusions. You repeat the same claims over and over without clearly answering my actual questions concerning your unclear view.

"Your posts and position seem sometimes to confuse inspiration and preservation", because you do not see that the Miraculous Process of the Original Autographs being Generated by Immediate Inspiration has been Fully Preserved and is Providentially Continued to be Inherently Inspired and are still Supernaturally Generated as the Derived Product of the Direct Miraculous Process, Who's Author of both is God.

Our Bible Contains the Preservation of the Inspiration and is, therefore God's Word, not man's, if it's a Valid Version.

You claim derived inspiration for the KJV without clearly demonstrating from the Scriptures that a post-NT translation would have any continuing quality of inspiration. You sometimes contradict your own inconsistent claims.

Your presupposition is to automatically mindlessly falsely accuse me by saying "You claim derived inspiration for the KJV without clearly demonstrating from the Scriptures that a post-NT translation would have any continuing quality of inspiration", which is not true as to facts or information.

You have not shown any contradictions or inconsistencies in my claims that are anything other than the product of your own misguided and biased prejudices in your unreasonable, rigid, and negative attitudes, feelings, and prejudgment formed against any individual or group who hold to any form of God's Word having "The Hand of God" on it in any way, without actual knowledge, sufficient facts, or Inspired Realities in the Spiritual Realm.

Is not an appeal to derived inspiration a selective attempt to try inconsistently to link the origin of one post-NT translation in Early Modern English [the KJV] directly to the miracle of the giving of all Scripture by inspiration to the prophets and apostles while attempting to deny the same thing for the word of God translated into present-day standard English?

Your presuppositional prejudices default without thinking to always accuse me of claiming something exclusively for the King James Bible and in this you are entirely willfully ignorant.

There is no evidence that I tried "to link the origin of one post-NT translation in Early Modern English [the KJV]" in any manner to anything by itself. I'm sorry you are ignorant.

I have repeatedly been very clear that the Original Autographs where "the miracle of the giving of all Scripture by inspiration", when the Holy Spirit "Moved" upon Holy men of God who were not themselves Inspired, however the Bible Teaches that like begets like.

The Words of God which are copied by the inert process of copying or printing and God's Words Translated by an inert process into another Language do not need to or have God Breathing Inspiration on them during those type of inert processes, because the Scripture that is copied or Translated still Remains Anointed, Divine, Alive, Quickening, "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"* and are God's "Word that goes out from My Mouth:", God says, and "It will not Return to Me empty, but Will Accomplish what I Desire and Achieve the Purpose for which I sent it."

The copies and Translated Words of God have Direct/Spiritual Influence Divinely Inspired Inherently in them, Derived by Virtue of their Author Inspirer God, that He Designated "Scripture" "Given by the Inspiration of God"**** by the Supernatural Act and Superintendence in the Providence of God which follows the Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God, which Jesus Determined to be "Spirit" and "Life"****, and they "are Profitable for Doctrine, Reproof, Correction, and Training in Righteousness..."***

*Hebrews 14:12. **Isaiah 55:11. ***II Timothy 3:16. ****John 6:63.

You are welcome to believe and say that the Original Language copies and Translations are "not given by Inspiration of God" and are, therefore, not Profitable for Doctrine, Reproof, Correction, and Training in Righteousness..." and that ONLY THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS ARE "SPIRIT" AND "LIFE", so THE TRANSLATIONS WE HAVE ARE "FLESH" AND "DEAD", but Jesus disagrees with you.

 

[Logos1560]

You could catch onto something here, if God Permits your eyes and ears to be Opened.

My eyes and ears are already open in contradiction to your bogus false implication. The indwelling Holy Spirit of truth guides me as much as you could assume that He guides you. You keep misrepresenting and twisting what I state into things that I did not state.

You fail to demonstrate from the Scriptures that the 1611 KJV is a complete inspired Bible. Over 2,000 changes, revisions, and corrections were made to the original 1611 edition of the KJV.

According to the KJV translators themselves in their marginal notes in the 1611 edition, the KJV does not give an English word/rendering for every original-language word of Scripture in its underlying texts. How is a Bible translation that omits many words a complete inspired Bible? Are you suggesting that the omissions are inspired? Are you claiming that all the hundreds of words that the KJV translators indicated that they added where they had no original-language words of Scripture for them are inspired?

Over 190 whole English words not found in the original 1611 KJV edition would be added in later KJV editions.

 

[Baptist4life]

Logos, serious question. You claim you use and respect the KJV. So, why do you spend so much time on here posting negative things about it? And please don't say that you don't. A casual reader of your posts would be lead to believe that they can't trust the KJV because there are mistakes in it. Imho, that leads people to not trust any Bible. So why do you do it?

 

[Logos1560]

So, why do you spend so much time on here posting negative things about it?

Perhaps you jump to a wrong conclusion as you seem to conflate pointing out the flaws with KJV-onlyism as supposedly being negative concerning the KJV. Saying negative things about modern, human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching is not at all the same thing as saying negative things about the KJV.

Having read and studied the KJV over 60 years, the doctrine of truth taught in the KJV teaches me to attempt to present the truth concerning the KJV and the doctrines taught in it. I am advocating and defending the truth concerning the KJV. My view of Bible translations is the same view as that of the KJV translators as presented in their preface to the 1611.

Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

What specific non-true thing or things do you claim or allege that I have stated concerning the KJV?


Here is someone who evidently has spent more time and more years on this subject than I have.

In her new 2026 revised edition of her book Which Bible is God's Word, Gail Riplinger wrote: "As far as I know, no one of late has ever spent over 20 years of 'full-time' research on only this one subject, that is, the text and the history of the Bible" (p. 69).
In this book, Gail Riplinger wrote: "At the Lord's leading, and because of my Christian convictions, I have been researching on a full-time basis, since 1986, the transmission, text, and translations of the holy scriptures" (p. 167).
Gail Riplinger wrote: "Perhaps I am the only living person who has collated word for word, letter by letter, accented syllable by accented syllable exactly what God did in 1611" (p. 432).

 

[SovereignGrace]

Logos, serious question. You claim you use and respect the KJV. So, why do you spend so much time on here posting negative things about it? And please don't say that you don't. A casual reader of your posts would be lead to believe that they can't trust the KJV because there are mistakes in it. Imho, that leads people to not trust any Bible. So why do you do it?

He hates the KJVO movement, not the KJV itself. I love the NASB 1995 but would hate a movement making it inerrant and above all other translations.

 

[Logos1560]

In his article entitled “Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?”, Herb Evans [follower of Peter Ruckman's tenets] claimed: “God breathed the breath of life into the Scripture, never to be breathed into again. The Bible that we have today (A.V. 1611) is alive! Inspired! It still has God’s Breath in it and will never ever expire” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, March, 1981, pp. 3, 8).

Gail Riplinger asserted: “The word of God must be breathing and alive to impart life” (In Awe, p. 334). Gail Riplinger wrote: “The words of the Holy Bible have the same powerful life-giving breath in them that spoke the world into existence” (p. 332). Gail Riplinger wrote: “The Bible does not tell us exactly how this inspiration (breath) is preserved and passed on generation after generation, but the Bible is still breathing and alive (quick) today” (p. 334). Gail Riplinger asked: “How can you tell if you have the English Bible which has the life giving breath of the Spirit of God?” (p. 335). Gail Riplinger claimed: “Only in the ‘miraculous’ KJV do accented syllables and matching letter sounds pulse at equally proportioned intervals, echoing the rhythm of the life-giving breath of a living, breathing speaker—the Spirit of the living God” (p. 23). Gail Riplinger asserted: “The real word of God will be characterized by those qualities of rhythm, balance, order, and beauty seen in the creation, a product of God’s breath (Ps. 33:6)” (p. 338). Gail Riplinger declared: “The KJB must be the word of God which ‘liveth and abideth forever’” (Hazardous, p. 1179). Gail Riplinger asked: “Can God’s Word be ALIVE without God’s breath?” (Landmark Anchor, July, 2009, p. 6). Gail Riplinger declared: “The word ‘inspiration’ means ‘breath’ and ‘spirit,’ according to the Bible’s built-in dictionary of parallelism (and any English, Greek or Hebrew dictionary” (In Awe, p. 332), appealing to Psalm 33:6 and John 6:63.

Al Lacy asserted: “Inspiration is the life-giving BREATH of Holy Spirit” (Can I Trust, p. 198). Al Lacy declared: “The Word of God can only LIVE, ABIDE, and ENDURE forever if God BREATHES LIFE INTO IT!!! That IS inspiration” (p. 199). Al Lacy wrote: “God breathed the breath of life into His words when the prophets SPAKE them (Luke 24:25; 2 Peter 1:21), and He KEPT ON breathing life into them when they were WRITTEN (2 Timothy 3:16) … and He KEPT ON breathing life into them when they were COPIED under His watchful eye (Nehemiah 8:1-6) … and He KEPT ON breathing life into them when they were TRANSLATED” (Ibid.).

Do even all KJV-only advocates agree with these assertions made by Herb Evans, Gail Riplinger, and Al Lacy? Why would God need to keep on breathing life into them if they already had life so they could breathe themselves?

Allen Domelle asserted: “When a person attacks whether the KJB is inspired, then in a round about way they are attacking Jesus Christ for He is the Word of God” (Battle for God’s Word). After quoting John 6:63, Mike Holloway wrote: “The Word of God, the Bible, is alive because God’s Word is also the Holy Spirit” (Common Sense, p. 122). Mike Holloway wrote: “The KJV is God’s divine seed, because it is the Word of God. It is not a tool of the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit in printed form” (pp. 122-123). Mike Holloway asserted: “The Holy Spirit IS God’s Word” (p. 123).

G. John Rov [pen name for Gary Rovarino] claimed: “As the God Man he [Jesus Christ] is the 1611 King James Bible made flesh” (Called of God, p. 174). Gary John Rov asserted: “Jesus is one with the word in spirit and life. And this word is the 1611 King James Bible” (p. 45). John Rov claimed that “he [Satan] attempted to stop the Son of God who was the actuality of the 1611 King James Bible, the Word, made flesh” (p. 63). John Rov maintained that “the Bible is the embodiment of Jesus” (Concealed, p. 23). John Rov suggested that “the Bible is a book that turned into a person and that Jesus is a person who turned into a book” (p. 13). John Rov claimed: “As we mature, despite concealment, we see the actual Jesus and the actual Bible in the 1611 King James Version” (p. 47).

Michael Hoggard wrote: “The first thing we will notice is that ‘the word of the LORD’ is used as a personification of God. This could only mean that the expression is used to identify Jesus Himself” (By Divine Order, p. 195). Michael Hoggard wrote: “The idea that the Bible and Jesus Christ are one in the same, is a principle that is to be accepted by all who claim to believe in the Lord” (p. 197).