Such as what books are being denied?
-
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!
Some Scripture More Inspired Than Others?
- Thread starter Baptist4life
- Start date
But at times the is NO definite proof either way which rendering actually was the original one, so have to base upon context, ones textual source preference, authors recognized way of grannar etc
But how would you tell the variant from the original if the original does not exist?
"Only could discern that if I were a KJVO, and trust in derived inspiration of the 1611 translators"But how would you tell the variant from the original if the original does not exist?
Yep....but then our discernment would fall into question.
The Original exists alright. It's knowing which one is the Original and which one a scribal error can be the hard part. One goes in the Text the other in the footnotes. That way you have the right reading either way.But how would you tell the variant from the original if the original does not exist?
So are some people.Some Scriptures are more inspiring than others.
Rob
Martin Luther so rested on salvation by faith alone that in his German translation of God's inspired Word he moved James to the end, with the added note "Epistle of Straw" because of James' push for salvation demonstrated by works
The idea of "all scripture is inspired but not all is inspiring" did not originate with our generation.
The idea of "all scripture is inspired but not all is inspiring" did not originate with our generation.
Inspired from first word of Genesis to last word of Revelation.
Yesterday during the Bible class, Chanukah was discussed (John 10:22). They read a passage from 1 Maccabees 4.
Since I am fully digital I was able to follow along in the NRSV which includes the Apocrypha.
I don't believe I've ever read from the Apocrypha in the church assembly before
Not inspired but interesting...
~~~~~~~~~
An aside, but in 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul states that "all Scripture is inspired".
Certainly Timothy was not taught using perfect copies,
Like Paul, Timothy was probably was quite comfortable reading the Greek Septuagint.
Apparently Paul was not disturbed by some variation among translations.
Rob
Last edited:
More than likely Martin Luther did not like the epistle of James because of whom it was addressed. It has been suggested by some, and I partly believe it, that his life and work was inspiration for the holocoust.
As far as inspiration of scripture, it is all equally inspired but it is not equally revealed. We read of Paul in Ephesians saying that OT scriptures contained his ministry and the work of God among gentiles but it was not revealed until a certain time in history.
Jesus did the same thing for the two disciples in Luke 24 when he opened their understanding of the scriptures. The scriptures and the information were there all along but they had no understanding of it until the time was right. Likewise, there is much yet to be revealed by time and experience from the general epistles and the Revelation. The light that was turned on to these new things was only in the minds of believers. This is a contant with God.
This could very well be the reason that most of you fellows are living in the past, grappling for books that were written by men who are long since dead. These men had their day and they served their generation but their work is stale. We have moved on to things that are fresh and alive and new. The world is not getting lighter and brighter but darker and it is because there are fewer people getting saved. We are told it would be this way. Jesus even opined that when he comes will he find faith on the earth.
In my KJVO world, I believe that revelation and understanding is progressive and we will see much more clearly as time and events unfold and wicked men deceiving and being deceived until our Lord Jesus Christ comes back to a much different earth than we know now and will reign in righteousness in preparation of the eternal state.
This is what I believe.
If you hold to KJVO, then which of the various available Kjv versions and TR texts would be the single perfect ones to use?
37818
Well-Known Member
No. The "is" should be "[is]." Only all God breathed writings are Holy Writings.
This is a "gotcha" question. But I do not think like you. All your theology and Bible understanding is borrowed. Someone has told you about KJV versions and TR texts. I do not trouble myself with KJV versions (silliness) and TR texts. The Bible I believe is the KJV and I am not concerned about versions. I have read and studied the KJV enough years and with enough intensity that I can recognize right away if something is wrong with my copy, which I have in the past BTW.
The KJV on Biblegateway.com is a case in point. It has hundreds of errors in it around the names of God and I often quote it because it is handy for me but I try to remember to correct the errors. I would not use it for a personal study Bible for that reason.
Who claimed Divine inspiration of them?
The King James Version is a version or translation in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are translations. Your belief concerning the KJV does not change what it actually is.
A Bible translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. By definition, a translation would be dependent upon something else for its existence. Translation would be a relative term since it is connected to another object. The source of a translation would be one of its essential causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation into another language could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes on which it is dependent. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources or causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Any reasoning that would attempt to reverse cause and effect would be erroneous. Can the greater authority of the antecedent source(s) be denied and the authority of the consequent translation affirmed? Does some KJV-only reasoning seem to involve use of the fallacy of affirming the consequent while denying the antecedent?
According to the laws of causality, of good and necessary consequence, and of non-contradiction, the preserved original language texts of Scripture cannot be and not be the authority, cause, source, and foundation for a translation at the same time and in the same respect. According to this law of causality, since a translation has a beginning, it has a cause. A cause would need to be first in time, order, and authority over its effect. The necessity of a translation being dependent or being an effect or consequence indicates that it derives or acquires its authority from a greater authority than itself [its textual sources]. A translation that is not direct revelation from God or is not directly given by inspiration of God is not independent and underived since that translation depends on the greater authority of its antecedent underlying texts for its derived, secondary, consequent authority. How can there be a translation without a source and standard on which it is based and to which it can be compared for accuracy?
By definition, the term translation would maintain that there is both a difference and a relationship between the consequent translation and its antecedent source or sources that can be compared and evaluated. A translation can be evaluated or tested for its accuracy in presenting the in-context meaning of the original-language words from which it is translated. A translation can be and will be either accurate or inaccurate since it is in a dependent, proportional relationship to its source or sources from which it is translated. In any places where a translation is inaccurate in relationship to its underlying texts or sources, it can be and should be corrected. The KJV is either an English Bible translation or it is not an English Bible translation.
Do some try to deny that the KJV is a translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles so that by use of special pleading they fail to apply the term translation consistently and justly?
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
What about people whose language isn't English? Don't they have access to the bible in their languages, or are you saying that they all have to learn, not just English, but the English of the KJV, where "prevent" means "go before," and "suffer" sometimes means "allow" or "permit"?
No, just asking which of the MANY differing Kjv editions and TR texts are to be seen as being the correct and perfect ones to be using then?