The King James Translators intended to make the very good Translations Better.

[Alan Dale Gross]

The KJV itself in its rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16 suggests that the term inspiration concerns the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles,

No, the KJV itself in its rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16
does not "'suggest' that the term inspiration concerns the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles".

the KJV does not assert that the term inspiration refer to the post-NT process of the making of Bible translations.

God does. Get used to it.

What God has had Written, and then Preserved for all the New Testament Age, are the same in their Spiritually Anointed and Inspired character as His Old Testament Scriptures which were clearly asserted to have been Inspired by Jesus and the Apostles use of them, as being a self-evident statement of Historical fact.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

"This is what theologians are referring to when they talk about the “inspiration” of Scripture: the idea that God “breathed into” the biblical writers. He did this by His Spirit: “Spirit” being the Greek word pneuma, meaning “breath.” So when God “breathed into” the writers of Scripture in this way, God was ensuring that what they wrote was what He wanted to say—and nothing else.
In other words, if we really wanted to hear God speaking, we should open our Bibles."

The Inspiration of Scripture

When we open the Bible, we can be sure that what we're reading has been breathed out by God. Today, Barry Cooper delves into the marvelous doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.

learn.ligonier.org

The Faithful Translations of the reliable Original Language Manuscripts extant results in Scriptures which have Preserved the Inspiration "God “breathed into” the writers of Scripture" in a way where God has ensured that what they wrote in those various Translations was what God Accepted and wanted to Say—within the boundaries of His Supernatural Superintendence over their processes and as we may discern utilizing the Process of Comparison with those same, non-spurious, reliable Original Language Manuscripts extant.

 

[Logos1560]

God does. Get used to it.

Are you trying to suggest that James Sightler is in effect God since you seem to suggest that his private interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is God speaking?

H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite as noting: “Theopneustos is a compound adjective which comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and pneustos (an adjective meaning ’breathed’). Pneustos comes from the verb, peno ’to breathe.’ It does not come from nor is it synonymous with the noun, pneuma. It comes clearly from the verb, pneo (to breathe)” (DiVietro, Cleaning-Up, p. iv). Ralph Earle asserted that the Greek word “literally means ‘God breathed’--theos, ‘God,’ and pneo, ‘breathe’” (Word Meanings, p. 409). Marvin Vincent also maintained that this word comes from the Greek noun for God and the Greek verb ‘to breathe’ and meant “God-breathed” (Word Studies, IV, p. 317). E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) defined the Greek word as “God-breathed, God-inspired” (Lexicon, p. 414). D. A. Waite asserted: “Gail Riplinger and others are totally in error to claim that an adjective (pneustos) could be taken as a noun (pneuma). This is contrary to all Greek grammar, whether classical or Koine. It is clearly false teaching and false doctrine” (DiVietro, Cleaning-Up, p. iv).

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.).

Jim Taylor asserted: “The ‘purity’ of the scripture is a natural outcome of the process of inspiration” and that “we cannot separate ‘purity’ from the doctrine of inspiration” (In Defense of the TR, p. 299). David Cloud declared: “The Bible plainly teaches that divine inspiration produces inerrancy. A doctrine of divine inspiration that allows for errors is heresy” (Why We Hold, p. 511). David Cloud noted: “If translations were ‘given by inspiration of God,’ they would not have to be perfected by a process of revision” (p. 511). Matthew Barrett affirmed that “sola Scriptura means that only Scripture, because it is God’s inspired Word, is our inerrant authority” (God’s Word Alone, p. 24). Matthew Barrett added: “Because inerrancy is a biblical corollary and consequence of divine inspiration—inseparably connected and intertwined—it is a necessary component to sola Scriptura. The God of truth has breathed out his Word of truth.” (p. 25). Matthew Barrett observed: “Sola Scriptura must mean that Scripture is the sole and final inerrant source of authority” (p. 293).

Bill Fortenberry asserted: “Biblical inerrancy is the logical consequence of biblical inspiration” (False Friends, p. 15). Abidan Paul Shah wrote: “The key is the doctrine of inerrancy is rooted in Scripture and not in the discipline of textual criticism” (Changing the Goalpost, p. 167). Rolland McCune noted: “Inspiration (and its correlate inerrancy) extends only to the original documents (autographs), not to subsequent copies (apographs) or translation” (Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 94). Rolland McCune added: “God’s direct involvement with the text—inspiration—occurred only at its inception” (Ibid.). Rolland McCune observed: “Scripture distinguishes the original documents from subsequent copies and translations” (p. 97) [cf. Deut. 17:18, Neh. 8:8, Prov. 25:1, Luke 4:16-21, Acts 17:2, 11]. Jason Lisle wrote: “The ‘translation principle,’ that the Bible is inerrant in its original autographs and language but not necessarily in copies or translations, is implied in a number of ways throughout Scripture” (Understanding, p. 182). Jason Harris asserted: “Inspiration is not a process that happens to translations or copies of the autographic text” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 30). Wilbur Pickering observed: “The authors were inspired, protected from error, but not the copiers through the years” (God Has Preserved, p. 207). Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Anything inspired by God should not contain errors” (Identity IV, p. 210). Wilbur Pickering wrote: “As a linguist (PhD) and one who has dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a ‘perfect’ translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve – the semantic areas of the words simply do not match, or only in part. It follows that any divine solicitude for the precise form of the NT Text would have to be mediated through the language of the Autographs—Koine Greek” (God Has Preserved, p. 19).

Do the Bible doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy affirm that Bible translations with any errors introduced by men could not be considered to be inspired?

Does your interpretation of inspiration in effect suggest that the errors in KJV editions such as in the original 1611 edition and in the 1769 Oxford edition and in the editions in between are inspired or given by inspiration of God?

 

[Logos1560]

Coverdale’s 1538 edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate NT has “inspirati” in its rendering at 2 Peter 1:21. Stephen Westcott’s modern-spelling edition of the 1388 Wycliffe New Testament has the following rendering of 2 Peter 1:21: “for prophecy was not brought at any time by man’s will, but the holy men of God, inspired with the Holy Ghost, spoke it.“

Miles Coverdale’s rendering of the Latin Vulgate in his 1538 English New Testament at 2 Peter 1:21 is the following: “For the prophecy was never brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the holy Ghost.”

The English words “inspiration” and “inspired” likely came into English Bible translations from the influence of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Peter Van Kleeck Sr. acknowledged: “The English word ‘inspiration’ is a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate, which renders 2 Timothy 3:16, omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata” (Exegetical Grounding, p. 191).

John Poirier noted that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate has “inspiravit” (Gen. 2:7), “inspiratione” (2 Sam. 22:16; Ps. 18:15), “inspiratio” (Job 32:8), “inspirationem” (Acts 17:25), “inspirata” (2 Tim. 3:16), and “inspirati” (2 Pet. 1:21) (Invention, pp. 17-18). John Poirier claimed that Jerome’s “Vulgate helped to ensure that these verses [2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21] would come to be read as making equivalent claims about Scripture” (p. 19).

Edward Young wrote: “Now the term inspiration is, in the humble opinion of the present writer, not a happy one. The word inspiration means that which is breathed in. It came to us from the Latin, and in the Latin translation of the Bible, commonly known as the Vulgate, is used as a rendering of the Greek theopneustos (God-breathed). We are not satisfied with this translation, for the English word inspiration as has just been remarked, means a ‘breathing in,’ and, as we have seen, that is not at all what Paul intends to say.” Edward Young added: “The Scriptures, Paul vigorously asserts, are writings which came into being because they were breathed out by God Himself” (Thy Word is Truth, pp. 21-22). Hobart Freeman wrote: “The English versions are influenced by the Vulgate which renders the Greek theopneustos as ‘God-inbreathed’ or ‘God-inspired.’ But the preposition ‘in’ is lacking in the Greek term, which term does not intend to convey the idea of God breathing something into the writers, but that God Himself breathed out something by divine inspiration, namely, the Holy Scriptures” (Introduction, p. 93).

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) asserted: “There is, we may well admit, nothing in the word theopneustos to warrant the in- of the Vulgate rendering: this word speaks not of an ’inspiration’ by God, but of a ’spiration’ by God” (Inspiration, p. 277). Benjamin Warfield wrote: “The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a ‘spiring’ or ‘spiration.’ What it says of Scripture is, not that it is ‘breathed into by God’ or is the product of the Divine ‘inbreathing’ into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, ‘God-breathed,’ the product of the creative breath of God” (p. 133). Benjamin Warfield noted: “The simple rendering ‘God-breathed’ would commend itself powerfully to us: certainly not, with the Vulgate and Luther, ‘God-inbreathed,’ since the proposition ‘in’ is wholly lacking in the term and is not demanded for the sense in any of its applications” (p. 284).

Gordon Clark asserted: “The English word inspiration with its prefix in gives the impression that after the Bible, or a book of the Bible, had been written, God breathed into it. However, the Greek word does not mean breathed into, it means breathed out. God breathed out the Scriptures” (God’s Hammer, p. 4). Matthew Barrett asserted: “2 Timothy 3:16 does not convey that God breathed something divine into the human writings after the fact, but rather the reason the Scriptures exist is because God himself breathed them out” (God’s Word Alone, pp. 228-229). Matthew Barrett observed: “The context of 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly conveys something being exhaled. God’s words are not breathed in; they are breathed out! God’s words come out from him to us, not vice versa” (p. 228). Gary Crampton wrote: “’God-breathed’ is actually a more proper translation of the original language of 2 Timothy 3:16 (Greek-Theopneustos), because it speaks of the fact that the Scripture has been ‘breathed out’ by God (whereas inspired means ‘breathed in’)” (Bible, p. 50). Cody Parrott asserted: “The Greek word does not mean breathed into; it means breathed out. God breathed out the Scripture” (God’s Word, p. 3). Steve Combs declared: “The words of Scripture proceeded out of God’s mouth; they were God-breathed” (Magnified, p. 42). William Macleod acknowledged: “The Greek word [theopneustos] gives the idea that the book is breathed out by God” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 496).

 

[Logos1560]

While the makers of the KJV noted that it was their intended mark or aim to make “one principal good” revision or translation, they also clearly condemned any presumption that would suggest that they accomplished their goal perfectly.

Verifiable, convincing facts in the 1611 edition would demonstrate this truth. In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.” The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts. These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered certain and unquestionable. The marginal notes could also raise doubt concerning some of their textual criticism decisions. The 1611 preface noted: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgment at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

Writing for all the translators in the 1611 preface, 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.”

 

[Logos1560]

Likewise, the NKJV translators intended to make very good translations better.

William Pierpont wrote: “The ‘New King James Version’ uses the same type of Greek ‘text’ as the KJV, but attempts to put it into more clearly understandable modern English” (Some Improvements to the King James Version from the Majority Greek Manuscripts, p. 6).

 

[Logos1560]

Dave Olson asserted: “In 1 Samuel 15:27, the NKJV inserts ‘Saul’ where ‘he’ is supposed to be. Some might say, ‘What’s the problem? It refers to the same person. Isn’t that the same thing?’ Once you begin to make changes based on what you think is more appropriate, you no longer have a pure copy of God’s Words” (Understanding the KJB, p. 51). D. A. Waite's book contended that when the NKJV "changes pronoun to noun" at 1 Samuel 20:2, it is a supposed example of "not faithfulness in translation" or "not accuracy in translation" (NKJV compared to KJV, pp. 27, xiii). The 1537 Matthew's Bible, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, has "Jonathan" instead of "he" at this verse just as the NKJV does. D. A. Waite claimed: “There is little reason for a translator who is faithful in his translating to change a pronoun and make it into a noun. That is interpretation. That is not translation” (Defending the KJB, p. 127).

Are KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates willing to apply their own stated claims, measures, and principles consistently and justly? Would KJV-only advocates complain about or condemn the KJV for adding a noun in English where there was not a noun in the Hebrew or Greek? Would they actually claim that it would be wrong or sin for the KJV translators to change a part of speech in the Hebrew or Greek to another part of speech in English? Would they suggest that you no longer have a pure copy of God’s words in the KJV if the KJV translators any time substituted a proper noun where a pronoun is found in the original-language Biblical text?

For example, the KJV changed "him" at 1 Samuel 20:18 in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and Geneva Bible to "David." The KJV inserted this noun that was not in the Hebrew, and it did not put this addition in italics. According to a consistent application of Olson’s and Waite’s very own assertions, were the KJV translators guilty of interpretation and not translation? Would Waite ask why the KJV translators did not leave it the way the Holy Spirit wrote it as he asked about the NKJV translators (see p. 129 in Defending the KJB)? Was a double standard used since the same standard is not applied to the KJV? The English translation of the 1637 Dutch authorized version has “him” at 1 Samuel 20:18. Where the 1560 Geneva Bible has the pronoun "he" at 1 Kings 20:12, the KJV substituted the noun "Ben-hadad” in italics. The English translation of the Dutch Bible has “he” at 1 Kings 20:12. In verse 24 of 1 Kings 9, the Geneva Bible and the KJV replaced "he" in Coverdale's with "Solomon" in italics. The Dutch Bible translated into English has “he” at this verse with the annotation: [“Solomon”].

Coverdale's rendering "his heart" (Gen. 45:26) became "Jacob's heart" in the Geneva, Bishops’, and KJV. The Geneva Bible placed this inserted word "Jacob's" in italics, but the KJV does not. D. A. Waite claimed: “Wherever the King James translators added words, they put those words in italics to show that the word does not appear in the Hebrew or the Greek but was added to convey the meaning for the English reader” (Foes, p. 96). The 1611 edition of the KJV had a marginal note "Hebr. his" at Genesis 45:26 to indicate that they had added the noun Jacob's in the text, but many present KJV editions do not have that marginal note. The 1873 Cambridge KJV edition edited by Scrivener puts "Jacob's" in italics to inform readers that it was added by the KJV translators, and a few KJV editions follow the 1873 Cambridge.

Genesis 45:26 [Jacob’s in italics in 1560 Geneva; 1611 has note “Hebr. his]

Jacob’s heart [1873 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)

Jacob’s heart (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


At 2 Kings 9:25, the KJV put "Jehu" in italics where the Matthew's Bible has "he." The KJV inserted "said Ahab" in italics at 1 Kings 20:34 when this addition was not in Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Bishops‘. "Moses" was added in italics at Numbers 15:23 in the KJV when it was not in the Hebrew and was not in Tyndale's, Matthew’s, and Coverdale‘s. Other examples where the KJV inserted a noun in italics include the following: "Abraham" (Gen. 21:33), "Samuel" (1 Sam. 9:24, 25), "Ish-bosheth" (2 Sam. 3:7), "Joram" (2 Sam. 8:10), "David" (2 Sam. 13:37, 1 Chron. 15:1, 1 Chron. 23:5, 1 Chron. 28:19), and "Beh-hadad" (1 Kings 20:34). At Acts 7:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "he" where the KJV substituted "Abraham" in italics. The Geneva and Bishops’ have “Moses” in italics (Exod. 10:18) where the KJV has “he.” At Numbers 23:4, Tyndale’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ have “Balaam said” where the KJV has “he said.” At James 4:6, the Geneva and Bishops’ have “the Scripture” while the KJV has “he.”

 

[Salty]

Likewise, the NKJV translators intended to make very good translations better.

William Pierpont wrote: “The ‘New King James Version’ uses the same type of Greek ‘text’ as the KJV, but attempts to put it into more clearly understandable modern English” (Some Improvements to the King James Version from the Majority Greek Manuscripts, p. 6).

KEY WORD "modern"

 

[Logos1560]

KEY WORD "modern"

Some KJV-only advocates will claim that the KJV's English is Modern English.

Bill Fortenberry claimed: “Modern English is the English of the KJV” (False Friends and True Enemies, p. 240; Stewardship, p. 42).

KJV-only author Kenneth Willis asserted: “The KJV is Elizabethan English and therefore modern English” (Every Jot, p. 22).

 

[Salty]

Some KJV-only advocates will claim that the KJV's English is Modern English.

Bill Fortenberry claimed: “Modern English is the English of the KJV” (False Friends and True Enemies, p. 240; Stewardship, p. 42).

KJV-only author Kenneth Willis asserted: “The KJV is Elizabethan English and therefore modern English” (Every Jot, p. 22).

Again - it is the interpretation!

According to WIKI:
Early Modern English-----1500-1850
Late Modern English------1860-Present

and then we have American English!

 

[Logos1560]

According to WIKI:
Early Modern English-----1500-1850
Late Modern English------1860-Present

Under the chapter heading “The Myth of Elizabethan English.” Bill Fortenberry wrote: “The next period of the English language extending from 1450 to 1690 is known as Early Modern English” (False Friends and True Enemies, p. 239; Stewardship, p. 41). April Mahon referred to “Early modern English (a convenient if slightly amorphous term which covers at least 1500-1700)” (Mugglestone, Oxford History of English, p. 180). In this same book, Richard Bailey wrote: “In most histories of the language, the boundary of 1700 has been chosen partly because of the roundness of the number, and partly because historians discern in the death of the poet John Dryden (who died in that year) the end of the copiousness of the English renaissance” (pp. 429-430).
David Crystal, an English language scholar, maintained that Early Modern English is “usually taken to begin around the time of the arrival of printing in Britain (1476) and to end around the lifetime of Dr. Johnson (died 1784)” (Making Sense, p. 180).

Bill Fortenberry asserted: “What [Mark] Ward referred to as Elizabethan English is more properly know[n] as Early Modern English” (False Friends, p. 239; Stewardship, p. 41). Does that statement indicate that it would not be actually a myth to refer to the English in the 1611 edition of the KJV as “Elizabethan English”?

According to the time period given by Bill Fortenberry himself, Elizabethan English would be part of the period of Early Modern English or would be another name for it. Therefore, it would not be a myth or a fable to refer to “Elizabethan English.” Bill Fortenberry asserted: “By 1690, this period of standardization was essentially complete, and Early Modern English became Modern English” (False Friends, p. 240; Stewardship, p. 42).

 

[Salty]

Bottom line - language changes over time

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Again - it is the interpretation!

According to WIKI:
Early Modern English-----1500-1850
Late Modern English------1860-Present

and then we have American English!

Speaking personally, I find the Puritan writers of the 17th Century (except John Owen!) to be easier to understand that some of the Scottish Presbyterian divines of the 19th Century, like George Smeaton or A.B. Bruce. English 19th Century authors like J.C. Ryle are much more straightforward.
Personally (again!) I do not have a problem with Early Modern English, having read Shakespeare (and even Chaucer!) at school, but the Bible was not written in Early Modern English; it was written in contemporary Hebrew and Greek, and today it should be translated into contemporary English, so that contemporary people can understand it.
As a member of Good News for Everyone! (UK version of Gideons) I aim to put Scripture into the hands of entirely unchurched people. I want it to be accurate, but also simple to read and understand, otherwise they will glance at it, and throw it away.

 

[Deacon]

Speaking personally, I find the Puritan writers of the 17th Century (except John Owen!) to be easier to understand that some of the Scottish Presbyterian divines of the 19th Century, like George Smeaton or A.B. Bruce. English 19th Century authors like J.C. Ryle are much more straightforward.
Personally (again!) I do not have a problem with Early Modern English, having read Shakespeare (and even Chaucer!) at school, but the Bible was not written in Early Modern English; it was written in contemporary Hebrew and Greek, and today it should be translated into contemporary English, so that contemporary people can understand it.
As a member of Good News for Everyone! (UK version of Gideons) I aim to put Scripture into the hands of entirely unchurched people. I want it to be accurate, but also simple to read and understand, otherwise they will glance at it, and throw it away.

Uggh. The Puritan writers wrote as if they were paid by the word.
As a young man I could read them but as I age, now I struggle... even listening to them on Audible puts me to sleep.

Are they on Facebook? I could handle their writings a few sentences at a time with funny pictures. lol

Rob

 

[Kai]

The Puritan writers wrote as if they were paid by the word.

I often wonder how the Puritans would respond to the current TLDR (Too Long, Didn't Read) generation. I suppose AI is powerful enough now to condense a few chapters into a few sentences, but even that may not be worth the effort for some.