Some Scripture More Inspired Than Others?

[JesusFan]

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?

Still seems that those holding to KJVO position must invoke some type of derived or special inspiration afforded to the 1611 translators that only the Apostles themselves ever had before and after them

 

[JD731]

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"?

How did you know that "prevent" means "go before," and "suffer" sometimes means "allow" or "permit"? Are you smarter than everybody else? Is your Bible version self explanatory and do you need not study? Why study if reading gets the job done?

Truly, some of the reasoning of you guys is mind blowing. Did you even know that it is in God's plan to keep truth from people who deny it? If you will not believe the simple, why would God show you the profound? Now, in your case, as is evidenced in this post, knowing that "prevent" means "go before," and "suffer" sometimes means "allow" or "permit" has not helped you much. It has actually caused you to move farther away from the truth and to join up with people who think God has written his Bible with the concern that it is easy to understand, when he says it is impossible to understand without his words and his Spirit because it is God's thoughts that the Spirit is teaching. Thoughts are expressed through words.

You have not been told the truth about Bibles, but I think I can say this; if you get the foundation of Christianity right, which is more dependent on a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ than a copy of the scriptures, you can build on this foundational truth, even from a lesser translation than the KJV.

So, I will say this; be sure you are truly saved because it does not matter what Bible version you carry if you are not. The gospel on which the church of Jesus Christ is founded was not explained initially by the scriptures but by preachers and witnesses.

 

[JD731]

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?

Still seems that those holding to KJVO position must invoke some type of derived or special inspiration afforded to the 1611 translators that only the Apostles themselves ever had before and after them

You, a Reformer, and I, a fundamentalist, have very little in common concerning what the scriptures teach about any subject that it deals with. Your concerns about which KJV and TR text is the right one is not my concerns. I do not give any thought to such matters.

 

[JesusFan]

How did you know that "prevent" means "go before," and "suffer" sometimes means "allow" or "permit"? Are you smarter than everybody else? Is your Bible version self explanatory and do you need not study? Why study if reading gets the job done?

Truly, some of the reasoning of you guys is mind blowing. Did you even know that it is in God's plan to keep truth from people who deny it? If you will not believe the simple, why would God show you the profound? Now, in your case, as is evidenced in this post, knowing that "prevent" means "go before," and "suffer" sometimes means "allow" or "permit" has not helped you much. It has actually caused you to move farther away from the truth and to join up with people who think God has written his Bible with the concern that it is easy to understand, when he says it is impossible to understand without his words and his Spirit because it is God's thoughts that the Spirit is teaching. Thoughts are expressed through words.

You have not been told the truth about Bibles, but I think I can say this; if you get the foundation of Christianity right, which is more dependent on a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ than a copy of the scriptures, you can build on this foundational truth, even from a lesser translation than the KJV.

So, I will say this; be sure you are truly saved because it does not matter what Bible version you carry if you are not. The gospel on which the church of Jesus Christ is founded was not explained initially by the scriptures but by preachers and witnesses.

Do you not accept that many words used in the kjv were acceptable and meant what they did back ionn their time, but have taken at times totally new and different understandings in modern usages of the terms and words now used?

 

[JesusFan]

You, a Reformer, and I, a fundamentalist, have very little in common concerning what the scriptures teach about any subject that it deals with. Your concerns about which KJV and TR text is the right one is not my concerns. I do not give any thought to such matters.

We would have to be in agreement on the cardinal truths and doctrines of the Christian Faith though, and KJVO position requires there has to be an accepted and approved perfect edition of the kjv, and perfect Greek TR text

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?

This is a slippery slope downwards to apostasy. If some bits are 'more inspired,' then the other bits are 'less inspired' and can be dismissed as unimportant.
I think the words of the 1689 Confession ( The WCF and Savoy Confession are almost identical) are very helpful:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.7
2 Pet. 1:19–21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 5:9

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
8 John 16:13-14; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'd like to make another point. I believe that the KJV Translators were right when they wrote:
'...We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ...... containeth the word of God; nay, is the word of God.' I suspect that the KJV translators did not imagine the GNB or CSB, but in general, they are correct.
I am persuaded that the Majority Text of the NT is likely to be correct more often that the Critical Text, and use the NKJV on this board, but my church uses the NIV (1984), and I have no problem preaching from it. Generally, I have found that differences between versions are simply different ways of saying the same thing. Very occasionally, like when I was preaching on 1 Tim. 3:16, I have expressed my view that the NIV is not correct, but in the vast majority of cases, I have found no problems.

 

[JD731]

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?

Do you think the value of the scriptures is being somewhat overplayed on these discussion boards? They are of value only to those who believes them. After all, the first scriptures on the earth did not appear until 3500 years had already passed, and then only to one tiny nation who he raised up as a family with whom God established a covenant relationship. The first non-Jewish people who ever received writing from God addressed directly to them was the epistle to the Galatians in AD 49. Then he wrote 12 more in the next 13/15 years. You can read the Barna report to get the info on how many nations of people have ever even heard of Jesus Christ and his salvation, much less have a Bible from God.

Why has the preaching of the gospel been primarily through the Europeans and why did God finally choose the English speakers to carry his gospel to the world? Could it be because they are the ones who would believe it?

Acts 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

I consulted a map to see where God thinks the gentiles who will believe are, as he defines gentiles. I figured if I tracked Paul, I would know.

We have scripture for only about two thousand years, a little less, yet I have read Heb 11 where believers in God have been justified by their faith since Abel.

What do you think?

 

[Logos1560]

You have not been told the truth about Bibles,

You fail to demonstrate that you know and tell the truth about Bible translations.

According to your posts, you may believe non-true and non-scriptural KJV-only opinions concerning the KJV.

The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

 

[JesusFan]

I'd like to make another point. I believe that the KJV Translators were right when they wrote:
'...We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ...... containeth the word of God; nay, is the word of God.' I suspect that the KJV translators did not imagine the GNB or CSB, but in general, they are correct.
I am persuaded that the Majority Text of the NT is likely to be correct more often that the Critical Text, and use the NKJV on this board, but my church uses the NIV (1984), and I have no problem preaching from it. Generally, I have found that differences between versions are simply different ways of saying the same thing. Very occasionally, like when I was preaching on 1 Tim. 3:16, I have expressed my view that the NIV is not correct, but in the vast majority of cases, I have found no problems.

If you were to take the essential doctrines and truths of the Faith and line up Modern versions such as Nasb/Esv/Nkjv/Niv, there would be no doctrine or theology denied and expressed as found also in the kjv

 

[JesusFan]

You fail to demonstrate that you know and tell the truth about Bible translations.

According to your posts, you may believe non-true and non-scriptural KJV-only opinions concerning the KJV.

The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

Kjvo has to fall back into their Kjv is inspired revelation, as taht translation was watched over and protected in the transaltion process just as much as the original books of the canon were by the Holy Spirit

 

[JD731]

You fail to demonstrate that you know and tell the truth about Bible translations.

According to your posts, you may believe non-true and non-scriptural KJV-only opinions concerning the KJV.

The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

You fail to demonstrate that you know and tell the truth about Bible translations.

According to your posts, you may believe non-true and non-scriptural KJV-only opinions concerning the KJV.

The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

I made a point about Bibles in post #48 that I think you missed. Can you respond to that post

 

[JD731]

If you were to take the essential doctrines and truths of the Faith and line up Modern versions such as Nasb/Esv/Nkjv/Niv, there would be no doctrine or theology denied and expressed as found also in the kjv

And you know that how?

 

[JD731]

@Logos1560

Do you think the value of the scriptures is being somewhat overplayed on these discussion boards? They are of value only to those who believes them. After all, the first scriptures on the earth did not appear until 3500 years had already passed, and then only to one tiny nation who he raised up as a family with whom God established a covenant relationship. The first non-Jewish people who ever received writing from God addressed directly to them was the epistle to the Galatians in AD 49. Then he wrote 12 more in the next 13/15 years. You can read the Barna report to get the info on how many nations of people have ever even heard of Jesus Christ and his salvation, much less have a Bible from God.

Why has the preaching of the gospel been primarily through the Europeans and why did God finally choose the English speakers to carry his gospel to the world? Could it be because they are the ones who would believe it?

Acts 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

I consulted a map to see where God thinks the gentiles who will believe are, as he defines gentiles. I figured if I tracked Paul, I would know.

We have scripture for only about two thousand years, a little less, yet I have read Heb 11 where believers in God have been justified by their faith since Abel.

What do you think?

<BUMP>

 

[atpollard]

I think that there is probably some merit in the concept that the Holy Spirit placed a heavier "thumb on the scale" to inspire some verses than other verses ... just because of the nature of the information being conveyed.

Titus 3:15 [NIV] Everyone with me sends you greetings. Greet those who love us in the faith. Grace be with you all.

Ephesians 2:8-9 [NIV] For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast.

While both of these verses are Scripture and "God-breathed" TRUTH, did God really have to exert equal "inspiration" to protect the details of the transmission of the Truth from God through Paul to us?

 

[JesusFan]

And you know that how?

Take all Kjv verses that reflect doctrines and truths and when compared to same passages in those Modern versions, no subtractions all still teaching same doctrines and practices

 

[JesusFan]

I think that there is probably some merit in the concept that the Holy Spirit placed a heavier "thumb on the scale" to inspire some verses than other verses ... just because of the nature of the information being conveyed.

Titus 3:15 [NIV] Everyone with me sends you greetings. Greet those who love us in the faith. Grace be with you all.

Ephesians 2:8-9 [NIV] For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast.

While both of these verses are Scripture and "God-breathed" TRUTH, did God really have to exert equal "inspiration" to protect the details of the transmission of the Truth from God through Paul to us?

Per verbal plenary inspiration, yes He did

 

[atpollard]

Do you think the value of the scriptures is being somewhat overplayed on these discussion boards?

Yes ... and then again, no.
While anecdotes are of limited value, when discussing such matters as soteriology and the role of Scripture, an aggregation of anecdotes is all we really have, therefore:

I heard the GOSPEL as a child during the twenty Easter and Christmas services I was forved to attend Church before ultimately rejecting the "fairy tale" to embrace the darker forms of atheism [Nihilism]. So the WORDS alone guarantee nothing: heard and rejected.

My conversion from atheism was 100% an act of God that had very little to do with words I knew and did not believe and everything to do with a reality that I could not deny that defied words.
So getting to the starting line ... YES, Scripture is over rated.
[Often expressed as "people don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care"]

They are of value only to those who believes them.

Herein lies the "NO" to your question "Are scriptures overplayed?". Knowledge of God without SCRIPTURE is just a DEIST. Barely one step above the demons who believe Jesus is God and tremble in fear. Only through scripture - the inexplicable power of those GOD-BREATHED words - can we come to really KNOW Him and can we really BE transformed. So there is no "ONLY" ... their value is incalculable and irreplaceable and absolutely essential.

That is my "one data point" to contribute to the conversation.

 

[JD731]

Take all Kjv verses that reflect doctrines and truths and when compared to same passages in those Modern versions, no subtractions all still teaching same doctrines and practices

Jn 6:63 has Jesus saying, the words I speak unto you are spirit and they are life. This can only mean that there are spiritual truths, all of which may are may not be known from a casual reading. These words came from a divine mind and it is proven over and over that his truths and meaningsare progressive and revealed.

 

[atpollard]

Per verbal plenary inspiration, yes He did

And where does SCRIPTURE affirm "verbal plenary inspiration" of Titus 3:15 and Ephesians 2:8-9?