Great. Are all these "word of God bibles" inspired?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2Timothy 3:16
They all say that verse, don't they?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should the Textus Receptus have conjectural emendations?
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
Great. Are all these "word of God bibles" inspired?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2Timothy 3:16
They all say that verse, don't they?
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I like this argument about proving a manuscript does not exist. It reminds me of someone that I met back in college that wanted to debate his theory that lizards from outer space hunted dinosaurs to extinction with laser rifles. He had an explanation for every possible complaint about the complete lack of evidence supporting his theory. (Only stupid dinosaurs fell into tar pits and got buried in sand to become fossilized, so the intelligent lizards decomposed and left no fossil evidence.)
This debate reminds me a lot of that one.
Backing up to the OP (which really isn’t about KJVO), I believe that the base manuscript in the original language that forms the base from which translations are made should be absolutely as close as possible to the original autographs. That means that no additions should be added or changes made except as “footnotes” where the manuscript evidence itself is unclear. The goal should be to preserve the original without adding to it, and without accidentally deleting anything from it.
Taking a step back from the “anguishing over a participle” view to see the “bigger picture” for just a moment. I find it extraordinary that the limited manuscript evidence available to the translators of the 1600’s (and the century before) yielded greater than 90% agreement with the vast number of manuscripts discovered since then including some VERY ANCIENT texts. I find it comforting that no important doctrine of Christianity is impacted by any of the proposed changes discovered since the 1600’s. From where I sit, God surely has preserved both His Word and His Truth over the last 21 centuries.
KJV is an OK translation. Some archaic grammar and word use, but it reads well out loud. KJVO is just silly since LOTS of people manage to get saved and learn God’s Word from other translations. If there was really an ONLY anything for the Bible, it would have to be in the original languages since only the original language can perfectly represent the original thought. However God has never been a “come to me” God, rather He has always been an “I will meet you at your point of need” God. So I see God favoring LOTS of vernacular translations with His Holy Spirit as the one to take up the slack between the translation and the Original Autograph.
(just my 2 cents)
This debate reminds me a lot of that one.
Backing up to the OP (which really isn’t about KJVO), I believe that the base manuscript in the original language that forms the base from which translations are made should be absolutely as close as possible to the original autographs. That means that no additions should be added or changes made except as “footnotes” where the manuscript evidence itself is unclear. The goal should be to preserve the original without adding to it, and without accidentally deleting anything from it.
Taking a step back from the “anguishing over a participle” view to see the “bigger picture” for just a moment. I find it extraordinary that the limited manuscript evidence available to the translators of the 1600’s (and the century before) yielded greater than 90% agreement with the vast number of manuscripts discovered since then including some VERY ANCIENT texts. I find it comforting that no important doctrine of Christianity is impacted by any of the proposed changes discovered since the 1600’s. From where I sit, God surely has preserved both His Word and His Truth over the last 21 centuries.
KJV is an OK translation. Some archaic grammar and word use, but it reads well out loud. KJVO is just silly since LOTS of people manage to get saved and learn God’s Word from other translations. If there was really an ONLY anything for the Bible, it would have to be in the original languages since only the original language can perfectly represent the original thought. However God has never been a “come to me” God, rather He has always been an “I will meet you at your point of need” God. So I see God favoring LOTS of vernacular translations with His Holy Spirit as the one to take up the slack between the translation and the Original Autograph.
(just my 2 cents)
Your spiritual alarm bells are not working correctly. You quote no Scriptures that states that the KJV is God's pick. You do not back up your opinions from the Scriptures.
I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I accept it as what it actually is and as what the KJV translators themselves said that it was. I have not rejected the KJV as what it actually is so your allegation is wrong. Disagreeing with your non-scriptural opinions is not rejecting the KJV. You keep trying to put words in my mouth that I do not say.
You fail to demonstrate that disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is destroying faith in what God said.
Are you spending time undermining or destroying faith in truth as you seem to advocate blind faith in assertions that are not true?
KJV-only advocates do not prove that the KJV is inspired although they may assume it by use of the fallacy of begging the question. They make no positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for their human KJV-only teaching.
KJV-only teaching is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine of God stated in the Scriptures. KJV-only teaching may include acceptance of some scriptural truths, but the added non-scriptural aspects of it make it a doctrine of man. KJV-only teaching concerning inspiration and preservation is applied inconsistently and unjustly.
KJV-only teaching is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine of God stated in the Scriptures. KJV-only teaching may include acceptance of some scriptural truths, but the added non-scriptural aspects of it make it a doctrine of man. KJV-only teaching concerning inspiration and preservation is applied inconsistently and unjustly.
"You quote no Scriptures that states that the KJV is God's pick."
Well, here you are saying the KJV, your bible for over 50 years, is not "God's pick".
You picked it although you claim it is not inspired.
But you keep them all not inspired for "only the originals are inspired".
You cannot prove that from the bible either.
"Disagreeing with your non-scriptural opinions is not rejecting the KJV."
"non-scriptural" opinions?
Why do you even use the word "scripture"?
You do not believe anything we have now is inspired.
All scripture is given by inspiration...
2 Timothy 3;16
How about the preserved from the originals?
Any inspiration there?
Well, here you are saying the KJV, your bible for over 50 years, is not "God's pick".
You picked it although you claim it is not inspired.
But you keep them all not inspired for "only the originals are inspired".
You cannot prove that from the bible either.
"Disagreeing with your non-scriptural opinions is not rejecting the KJV."
"non-scriptural" opinions?
Why do you even use the word "scripture"?
You do not believe anything we have now is inspired.
All scripture is given by inspiration...
2 Timothy 3;16
How about the preserved from the originals?
Any inspiration there?
Last edited:
In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, KJV-only author H. D. Williams wrote: “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v).
Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394).
KJV-only author 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). 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.).
Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394).
KJV-only author 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). 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.).
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
You suggest God gave the church false scripture when he is in the position not to. You do more to destroy faith than to nurture it.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
You discredit God's word.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Try proving there isn't one. It's hypocritical to have me prove what cannot be proven when you assume you do without proof.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
You destroy faith in God's providence and Word.
I realize you don't get it, but I think others reading this will come to understand the issue. Let's try a different way to explain. You have made a truth claim. You cannot prove your claim. You are hiding behind the insistent that you have no obligation to prove your truth claim.
You have claimed as truth, for example, that "shall be" is not found in any of the mss. used by Beza to make his revision. Do you know what manuscripts Beza used to make his revision? Does anyone else? You have claimed that there are no manuscripts with that wording. Have you read every Greek manuscript? Have you read after a writer that has read every Greek manuscript? Has anyone read every Greek manuscript? I dare say you have not researched this but are merely relaying incorrectly what other writers have said in a more accurate manner -- that they are not aware of any such manuscript. Not being aware of something is not proof that it does not exist, which is your unproveable claim.
My proof is simple-no one has shown us one. If you say it can't be proven, you're tacitly admitting there aren't any.
No; I tell the TRUTH. The KJVO myth is man-made & therefore FALSE. There's not one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it.
You really need to STUDY THE FACTS of that myth you believe. Perhaps some study, beginning with the AV makers' preface To The Reader, will help break your thralldom to it.
Your allegation is false. I did not at all suggest that God gave the church false scripture. God gave by inspiration 100% true, absolutely pure Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.
God was not and is not responsible for the errors introduced by men in original language copies or for the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV.
My scripturally-based position would build up and nurture sound faith in the truth while modern KJV-only reasoning exacts blind faith in assertions that are not true.
You disobey the Scriptures by bearing false witness by making your false allegation.
You do not prove that my faith in God and in the Scriptures nor that my stand for consistent truth would discredit God's word.
Actually, the claim was made before I repeated it, made many years ago. Now, IF such a ms. existed, how come there's no PROOF of its existence having been found in all these years.? Even if such a ms. DID exist, but no longer does, someone somewhere would've mentioned it when he noticed Beza's addition to that verse, as it likely would've existed shortly after Beza published his work.
It's not as if I suddenly stated the theory outta thin air. It's been around a while! And I'm far from the only one stating it !
Also, as God preserves His word, IF those words belonged in His word, He would've preserved at least one ms. with them in it so there'd be no doubt !
Speaking about falsehoods and dreaming up doctrines to give a platform for beliefs here is one:
ONLY the originals are inspired.
We have "principles" based on the bible and yada-yada evidence but
NOT ONE bible verse.
Here is what many on this forum have said:
"There is NO inspired bible translation existing today",
yet then they say they are born again Christians
with a supernatural experience
but that experience had nothing to do with the inspired, living word of God.
Go figure.
If it sounds eddycated, aeill bai eat.
Them guyz is sure a lot smarter than this hay beet.
The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8
All scripture is inspired of God...
2 Timothy 3:16
Being born again,
not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible,
by the word of God,
which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:23
ONLY the originals are inspired.
We have "principles" based on the bible and yada-yada evidence but
NOT ONE bible verse.
Here is what many on this forum have said:
"There is NO inspired bible translation existing today",
yet then they say they are born again Christians
with a supernatural experience
but that experience had nothing to do with the inspired, living word of God.
Go figure.
If it sounds eddycated, aeill bai eat.
Them guyz is sure a lot smarter than this hay beet.
The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8
All scripture is inspired of God...
2 Timothy 3:16
Being born again,
not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible,
by the word of God,
which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:23
You do not have one Bible verse that states your opinions concerning the 1611 KJV or other Bible translations. The verses that you cite and quote do not state your claims concerning post-NT Bible translations. You may have dreamed up or invented your own non-scriptural doctrine, but you do not prove that I have done what you allege.
Your allegations are hypocritical and unjust since you do not apply them to your own non-scriptural opinions. You show that you are making unrighteous judgments.
- Status