Some Scripture More Inspired Than Others?

[Baptist4life]

Reading on another forum I came across a conversation between a few people, and someone posted that they believe that some parts of Scripture are "more inspired" than other parts of Scripture. Not sure what they meant by that but I found that rather odd. Does anyone on here believe something like that? The Bible says that All Scripture is inspired by God..... Thoughts?

 

[Conan]

Between two competing Variants, one is the inspired text and the other a scribal error.

That's not what the other poster at the other board meant maybe but I was taking a shot at it.

 

[Logos1560]

Some KJV-only advocates may in effect try to suggest that the KJV is more inspired and superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

On the other hand, some KJV-only advocates refer to what is called derived inspiration, which could suggest something less inspired than all Scripture given directly by inspiration of God. Phil Stringer noted: “There is a third group that teaches what they call ‘derivative inspiration’” (Unbroken Bible, p. 16). These KJV-only advocates used the term inspired for the KJV in a different sense than for the original-language Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles.

David Cloud maintained that he believes that the KJV “has DERIVED its inspiration from the text upon which it was based” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 3). David Cloud wrote: “I believe an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew text is the inspired Word of God because its inspiration is derived from the original text” (Myths, p. 110). David Cloud wrote: “I believe it [the KJV] has derived its inspiration from the Greek and Hebrew text upon which it is based” (Ibid.). Lloyd Streeter asserted: “The King James Bible does have a derived inspiration” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 45). Bob Steward claimed: “I believe that inspiration, as it applies to translations is to be counted in a different way. I believe in a derivative and practical inspiration for any translation of the Bible that comes accurately forth from those original manuscripts” (Is the KJB Inspired, pp. 2-3). Charles Surrett suggested: “Translations reflect ‘derived inspiration’ to the degree that they accurately translate those accurate copies” (Certainty, p. 75). Peter Van Kleeck (Sr. and Jr.) claimed: “Now, for 420 years, the Authorized Version has stood undaunted as the derivatively inspired Word of God for English speaking people” (Theological Grounding, p. 207). They asserted: “The derivative inspiration of the Authorized Version is self-attesting, self-authenticating and self-interpreting, the same attributes carried over from the apographa from which it was translated” (p. 220).

Sam Gipp admitted that the KJV “is not inspired in the same fashion as the Originals were” (Is Our English Bible Inspired, p. 69).

 

[Baptist4life]

Logos, thank you for the response. But he was saying that some passages in Scripture, in whatever translation, are more inspired than other passages in Scripture, no matter what translation. He even claimed that some of the things that Paul wrote are Paul's thoughts on a topic, and not God's. He claimed Paul's writings about homosexuality were only Paul's opinion, and that Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality. I believe that all Scripture is inspired, he seems to believe that some passages are just the thoughts of people that they had on their own, and not led by the Holy Spirit. I just have never heard anyone with that viewpoint and I wondered what you all thought.

 

[JesusFan]

Reading on another forum I came across a conversation between a few people, and someone posted that they believe that some parts of Scripture are "more inspired" than other parts of Scripture. Not sure what they meant by that but I found that rather odd. Does anyone on here believe something like that? The Bible says that All Scripture is inspired by God..... Thoughts?

The red letters of Jesus? they hold to a limited view of inspiration? They hold to Pauline letters being best revelation? Correct view would be all was inspired equally to us, but not all for us now as do different between old and new covernants and how they apply to us? Many also claim that apostles at times just gave human opinion and were not inspired in places, or else would just speaking to situations of their own times?

 

[JesusFan]

Some KJV-only advocates may in effect try to suggest that the KJV is more inspired and superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

On the other hand, some KJV-only advocates refer to what is called derived inspiration, which could suggest something less inspired than all Scripture given directly by inspiration of God. Phil Stringer noted: “There is a third group that teaches what they call ‘derivative inspiration’” (Unbroken Bible, p. 16). These KJV-only advocates used the term inspired for the KJV in a different sense than for the original-language Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles.

David Cloud maintained that he believes that the KJV “has DERIVED its inspiration from the text upon which it was based” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 3). David Cloud wrote: “I believe an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew text is the inspired Word of God because its inspiration is derived from the original text” (Myths, p. 110). David Cloud wrote: “I believe it [the KJV] has derived its inspiration from the Greek and Hebrew text upon which it is based” (Ibid.). Lloyd Streeter asserted: “The King James Bible does have a derived inspiration” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 45). Bob Steward claimed: “I believe that inspiration, as it applies to translations is to be counted in a different way. I believe in a derivative and practical inspiration for any translation of the Bible that comes accurately forth from those original manuscripts” (Is the KJB Inspired, pp. 2-3). Charles Surrett suggested: “Translations reflect ‘derived inspiration’ to the degree that they accurately translate those accurate copies” (Certainty, p. 75). Peter Van Kleeck (Sr. and Jr.) claimed: “Now, for 420 years, the Authorized Version has stood undaunted as the derivatively inspired Word of God for English speaking people” (Theological Grounding, p. 207). They asserted: “The derivative inspiration of the Authorized Version is self-attesting, self-authenticating and self-interpreting, the same attributes carried over from the apographa from which it was translated” (p. 220).

Sam Gipp admitted that the KJV “is not inspired in the same fashion as the Originals were” (Is Our English Bible Inspired, p. 69).

The1611 Translators NEVER held their 1611 translation to have any form of inspiration, derived or otherwise, and KJVO position that Kjv was further revelation or can correct Hebrew and Greek texts totally ignorant position

 

[JesusFan]

Logos, thank you for the response. But he was saying that some passages in Scripture, in whatever translation, are more inspired than other passages in Scripture, no matter what translation. He even claimed that some of the things that Paul wrote are Paul's thoughts on a topic, and not God's. He claimed Paul's writings about homosexuality were only Paul's opinion, and that Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality. I believe that all Scripture is inspired, he seems to believe that some passages are just the thoughts of people that they had on their own, and not led by the Holy Spirit. I just have never heard anyone with that viewpoint and I wondered what you all thought.

basically, they must deny full inspiration, as they want to keep their views on sexual lifestyles and other sinning areas as not where god Himself gave his real opinion, but claimed Paul wrongly gave to his his mere opinion, as they want to water down the scriptures in order to keep on enjoying sinning

 

[Logos1560]

The1611 Translators NEVER held their 1611 translation to have any form of inspiration, derived or otherwise, and KJVO position that Kjv was further revelation or can correct Hebrew and Greek texts totally ignorant position

Lloyd Streeter claimed: “Inspiration is not in degrees, nor is it a higher or a lower level” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 47). Lloyd Streeter declared: “There is no lesser inspiration or lower degree of inspiration” (p. 45). Lloyd Streeter contended that saying that the KJV “is not inspired ‘IN THE SAME SENSE’ as the original text is to downplay the inspiration of the Bible” (p. 46).

There is a fourth group of KJV-only advocates that say that no post-NT Bible translation should be called inspired.

Charles Kriessman noted: “The total misunderstanding and misuse of the term and doctrine of inspiration is leading Christians to say that a translation such as the King James Bible is inspired” (Modern Version Failures, p. 44). Charles Kriessman observed: “An inspired translation belief can also lead to other fallacies, such as derivative inspiration. Derivative inspiration is a belief that translated Bible’s Words derive inspiration from the underlying original Words. This position rejects the God-breathed definition of inspiration, (theopneustos)” (p. 53). KJV-only author H. D. Williams asserted: “There is no such thing as re-inspiration, double inspiration, derivative inspiration, or advanced revelation for any translation to allow reinscripturation” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 83). D. A. Waite declared: “I do not believe there is such a thing as ‘derivative inspiration’’’ (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 116). D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no such thing as derivative when you talk about God-breathing (inspiration) of His words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 137). H. D. Williams claimed: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21). H. D. Williams asserted: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them. It is equivalent to claiming that God gave His inspired Words twice, which is contrary to Scripture (Jude 1:3)” (p. 63). H. D. Williams contended: “Since the Words of God are unchanging in their original pure, perfect, inspired ’jots and tittles,’ no derivative can be formed” (Pure Words, p. 17).

 

[Baptist4life]

Again, thank you Logos. I know I have been critical of you in the past, and I apologize for that. I was wrong. Hoping you and yours are truly blessed in this new year.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Reading on another forum I came across a conversation between a few people, and someone posted that they believe that some parts of Scripture are "more inspired" than other parts of Scripture. Not sure what they meant by that but I found that rather odd. Does anyone on here believe something like that? The Bible says that All Scripture is inspired by God..... Thoughts?

I don't know what they mean either not being able to see the post, but as you say, "ALL scripture.....". All means all. The begats in 1 Chronicles are just as inspired as John 3:16.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos, thank you for the response. But he was saying that some passages in Scripture, in whatever translation, are more inspired than other passages in Scripture, no matter what translation. He even claimed that some of the things that Paul wrote are Paul's thoughts on a topic, and not God's. He claimed Paul's writings about homosexuality were only Paul's opinion, and that Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality. I believe that all Scripture is inspired, he seems to believe that some passages are just the thoughts of people that they had on their own, and not led by the Holy Spirit. I just have never heard anyone with that viewpoint and I wondered what you all thought.

Perhaps this person has been taught his view of inspiration by liberals or by neo-orthodox. Liberals would not accept the inspiration of all Scripture. Liberals would accept higher criticism that suggests that Moses did not write all the first five books of the Old Testament and that the apostle Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, which would suggest that the pastoral epistles would have less authority according to their view. Higher critics would reject portions of some books or even some whole books of Scripture as not being inspired, especially if they are considered to have been added later.

Wally Beebe noted that the neo-orthodox say: "Only what speaks to me is the real Word of God." Wally Beebe added: "I don't believe that, and I know of no one who is a fundamentalist who does" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1997, p. 3). Robert Sargent pointed out: "Theology based upon such a view of inspiration can only be emotive and mystical and again makes man the authority" (English Bible, p. 27). Robert Barnett also stated: "We are quick to spot the error of Neo-orthodoxy for saying the Bible is only the Word of God when the Holy Spirit subjectively applies the Word to our hearts" (Word of God on Trial, p. 24). Robert Barnett also wrote: "Neo-orthodoxy would say that the Bible is only the Word of God when an individual experiences the Word through the work of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid., p. 37). The mystical view has also been called "flash" inspiration. David Norris maintained that mysticism “is found in the neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Brunner, ‘the bible is God’s word when it speaks to me’ brigade” (Big Picture, p. 95). David Norris observed: “The Bible does not mean what it means to me, it means what God gave it to mean quite apart from me” (p. 236). In mysticism, he noted that “authority is determined subjectively by the reader and not by God” (p. 256). David Norris asserted: “The Bible, though often apparently in a central position, is in fact sidelined in all mysticism (p. 96). KJV-only author H. D. Williams claimed that “contemplative mysticism about the Words of God is a product of modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and trust in man” (Miracle of Biblical Inspiration, p. 106). H. D. Williams maintained that “belief in a perfect translation ‘given by inspiration of God’ is the result of a tendency towards ‘mysticism’” (Ibid.).

 

[JesusFan]

Lloyd Streeter claimed: “Inspiration is not in degrees, nor is it a higher or a lower level” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 47). Lloyd Streeter declared: “There is no lesser inspiration or lower degree of inspiration” (p. 45). Lloyd Streeter contended that saying that the KJV “is not inspired ‘IN THE SAME SENSE’ as the original text is to downplay the inspiration of the Bible” (p. 46).

There is a fourth group of KJV-only advocates that say that no post-NT Bible translation should be called inspired.

Charles Kriessman noted: “The total misunderstanding and misuse of the term and doctrine of inspiration is leading Christians to say that a translation such as the King James Bible is inspired” (Modern Version Failures, p. 44). Charles Kriessman observed: “An inspired translation belief can also lead to other fallacies, such as derivative inspiration. Derivative inspiration is a belief that translated Bible’s Words derive inspiration from the underlying original Words. This position rejects the God-breathed definition of inspiration, (theopneustos)” (p. 53). KJV-only author H. D. Williams asserted: “There is no such thing as re-inspiration, double inspiration, derivative inspiration, or advanced revelation for any translation to allow reinscripturation” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 83). D. A. Waite declared: “I do not believe there is such a thing as ‘derivative inspiration’’’ (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 116). D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no such thing as derivative when you talk about God-breathing (inspiration) of His words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 137). H. D. Williams claimed: “Every person holding the view that the King James Bible is inspired, derivatively inspired, derivatively pure, or derivatively perfect is not only linguistically and historically incorrect, he is theologically incorrect” (Pure Words, p. 21). H. D. Williams asserted: “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic and prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them. It is equivalent to claiming that God gave His inspired Words twice, which is contrary to Scripture (Jude 1:3)” (p. 63). H. D. Williams contended: “Since the Words of God are unchanging in their original pure, perfect, inspired ’jots and tittles,’ no derivative can be formed” (Pure Words, p. 17).

And yet despite all that they have stated here, do not many of them still say its the perfect and inerrant English transition to us now, and for all intents and purposes would indeed be exact position of supreme authority as the originals themselves?

 

[JesusFan]

Perhaps this person has been taught his view of inspiration by liberals or by neo-orthodox. Liberals would not accept the inspiration of all Scripture. Liberals would accept higher criticism that suggests that Moses did not write all the first five books of the Old Testament and that the apostle Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, which would suggest that the pastoral epistles would have less authority according to their view. Higher critics would reject portions of some books or even some whole books of Scripture as not being inspired, especially if they are considered to have been added later.

Wally Beebe noted that the neo-orthodox say: "Only what speaks to me is the real Word of God." Wally Beebe added: "I don't believe that, and I know of no one who is a fundamentalist who does" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1997, p. 3). Robert Sargent pointed out: "Theology based upon such a view of inspiration can only be emotive and mystical and again makes man the authority" (English Bible, p. 27). Robert Barnett also stated: "We are quick to spot the error of Neo-orthodoxy for saying the Bible is only the Word of God when the Holy Spirit subjectively applies the Word to our hearts" (Word of God on Trial, p. 24). Robert Barnett also wrote: "Neo-orthodoxy would say that the Bible is only the Word of God when an individual experiences the Word through the work of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid., p. 37). The mystical view has also been called "flash" inspiration. David Norris maintained that mysticism “is found in the neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Brunner, ‘the bible is God’s word when it speaks to me’ brigade” (Big Picture, p. 95). David Norris observed: “The Bible does not mean what it means to me, it means what God gave it to mean quite apart from me” (p. 236). In mysticism, he noted that “authority is determined subjectively by the reader and not by God” (p. 256). David Norris asserted: “The Bible, though often apparently in a central position, is in fact sidelined in all mysticism (p. 96). KJV-only author H. D. Williams claimed that “contemplative mysticism about the Words of God is a product of modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and trust in man” (Miracle of Biblical Inspiration, p. 106). H. D. Williams maintained that “belief in a perfect translation ‘given by inspiration of God’ is the result of a tendency towards ‘mysticism’” (Ibid.).

At least liberals are honest that the bible is no more inspired than Shakespeare, but the neoorthodoxy are much worser, and they accept willingly Noah a myth, as was Jonah and Genesis, and that at best have a limited amount of inspiration involved, but basically only when the Holy Spirit make it become really word of God to me

 

[37818]

At least liberals are honest that the bible is no more inspired than Shakespeare, but the neoorthodoxy are much worser, and they accept willingly Noah a myth, as was Jonah and Genesis, and that at best have a limited amount of inspiration involved, but basically only when the Holy Spirit make it become really word of God to me

It is not merely being honest. It is bad interpretation. Denial of the inerrancy or authenticity of the original autographs.

 

[JesusFan]

It is not merely being honest. It is bad interpretation. Denial of the inerrancy or authenticity of the original autographs.

Yes, but at least they are far more consistent than those who claim to accept the bible as inspired, but only when they agree with it, but if bible stated things such as homosexual behavior is sinning, or allowed no women pastors, than they feel free to reject, as these must have been when mere opinion can mixed in with "true inspiration"

 

[JonC]

Between two competing Variants, one is the inspired text and the other a scribal error.

That's not what the other poster at the other board meant maybe but I was taking a shot at it.

I don't think we can say that between two variants. They could both be variants of the same inspired text...or inspiration could transient variants (what was being conveyed is being communities in both.....etc.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't think we can say that between two variants. They could both be variants of the same inspired text...or inspiration could transient variants (what was being conveyed is being communities in both.....etc.

Only caveat would be the variant chosen must not violate any doctrines or truths of the scriptures

 

[JesusFan]

Only caveat would be the variant chosen must not violate any doctrines or truths of the scriptures

This would be an obvious example on how NOT to select a variant, as would violate doctrine and theology
"The most significant change from the previously published text is in chapter 21, verse 6. In the previous version, God declares from his throne: “It is done, I am the Alpha and the Omega”. Now it reads, “I have become, I, the Alpha and the Omega”. The theological difference in meaning is that either God has always been the first and the last, or he has become the first and the last. The scholars decided in favour of the latter because it is better documented in the manuscripts. In addition, the editors were able to logically understand why the first variant had been used until now: it is theologically easier to grasp. This change will have an impact on all new translations."

NEWSMUSTER

The news portal offers current information about studies, research and life at Münster University.

www.uni-muenster.de

Suggested new rendering for upcoming Nestle 29 edition

 

[37818]

I don't think we can say that between two variants. They could both be variants of the same inspired text...or inspiration could transient variants (what was being conveyed is being communities in both.....etc.

Typically between two variants only one of the variants can be the God breathed text.

 

[37818]

Yes, but at least they are far more consistent than those who claim to accept the bible as inspired, but only when they agree with it, but if bible stated things such as homosexual behavior is sinning, or allowed no women pastors, than they feel free to reject, as these must have been when mere opinion can mixed in with "true inspiration"

The real problem is apostate denial of some books of all the 66 books.