The "scriptures" are said to be "Given by the Inspiration of God", and I, therefore, say "The Bible we hold in our is Inspired."

[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,

"I believe that Inspiration is not 'a process' but 'an Entity', an Eternal Entity, a fact or deed," (SEE BELOW).

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to post-NT translations,

"What is Inspired Scripture? In order to get a Biblical answer to this question one must seek out what the Bible says about it. Scripture claims itself to be Given by Inspiration:

"2 Timothy 3:15-17; "And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through Faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

James H. Sightler, M.D. (1937-2019)
Sightler Publications, July 2005
​

"I believe that Inspiration is not 'a process' but 'an Entity', an Eternal Entity, a fact or deed.

"If the KJV Translators had believed it was 'a process' they would have translated II Timothy 3:16, “pasa graphe theopneustos” as “All scripture is God breathed.”

"In that sentence God Breathed is an adjective, or present participle used as adjective, which describes the noun 'Scripture'.

"A verbal adjective would imply 'a becoming', but the Word did not become. He is. But the translators, and their English predecessors, were led to avoid that rendering, and I believe they knew in their hearts that Inspiration was an Eternal Entity, a noun.

"Even though the phrase “by Inspiration of God” describes Scripture it is at least equally valid to look at it as a noun which is the object of the sentence.

"Here Paul could not have been speaking to Timothy of any original manuscripts. Those of the Old Testament were gone. And since II Timothy was probably Paul’s last epistle much of the New Testament already had been written.

"Graphe in this verse means 'Scripture' of both Testaments. The Holy Ghost said that Timothy had known the Scriptures, and so he had them before him from childhood.

"The word theopneustos was Given by the Holy Ghost to Paul. It is unique. It appears only once in the New Testament and is only infrequently seen in earlier pagan Greek writing.

"Some defenders of the KJV believe that theopneustos is a “verbal adjective,” essentially a past participle. That belief is more compatible with the concept of Inspiration as a process which occurred in time, that is, 'a becoming'. They say that “pasa graphe theopneustos” means all Scripture is God Breathed. If theopneustos is a verbal adjective the Translation should be “God Breathed” and not “given by inspiration of God.”

"The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia gives theopneustos as a noun. It says that Scripture is: “the product of the Creative Breath of God.

"In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine Product”

"... When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture" or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine Breath, he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the Product of a specifically Divine Operation.” It is a Product, an Eternal Entity, and not 'a process' or becoming.

"Adding the suffix -tion to a verb in English makes a noun. “All scripture is the breath of God” treats theopneustos as a noun and would be a better rendering than “All scripture is God breathed,” which would treat theopneustos as an adjective.

"Neither is as sublime or correct as “All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God,” which we have in the KJV.

"Theopneustos is masculine and graphe is feminine. By the rules of Greek grammar they should agree in gender. In order for them to agree we would have to change the os ending to an eta, and we would then have 'breath of a goddess', rather than 'Breath of God'. But in Greek there is no feminine adjective which ends with omicron sigma. Theopneustos is masculine.

"Theopneustos occurs only once in the NT and therefore is an extremely important word that must be properly rendered. Of course it does not need to occur more than once. But it is a noun, naming an Eternally Completed Entity.

"When the KJV Translators put “Given by Inspiration” they were rendering theopneustos as a noun. According to rules of Greek usage, juxtaposing these two nominatives, graphe and theopneustos, implies the equivalence of them.

"Also implied is the verb to be, “is,” between them. The absence of the verb to be is called an ellipsis that actually gives emphasis that it should be rendered in Translation.

"There is a second implied "is" in verse 16 followed by an adjective. This context is consistent with Inspiration as a noun, because Inspiration is qualified by being described with the adjective, profitable.

"In addition the “Given by” reminds us that the scriptures are themselves an Eternal Gift from God, not to be whimsically meddled with. The Scriptures were Inspired from Eternity, Inspired while they were being put into the “original autographs,” are still Inspired today, and must always be so, forever Settled."

 

[Logos1560]

"I believe that Inspiration is not 'a process' but 'an Entity', an Eternal Entity, a fact or deed,"

​

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3). Richard Brash wrote: “’Inspiration’ is the name we give to the process by which God gives all the words of the Bible to the human authors” (How God Preserved, p. 21).

Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Jim Taylor again noted: “Keep in mind that inspiration describes the process by which God recorded His words for man” (p. 76). Chester Kulus defined inspiration as “inspiration refers to the process whereby God, that is, God the Father (2 Timothy 3:16), God the Son (1 Peter 1:11), and God the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), moved in holy men to record accurately His Words, so as to produce the Word of God” (Those So-called, p. xxii; One Tittle, p. 396). Ed DeVries observed: “God breathed, God spoke, and as the breath came out He was speaking the words of the Bible” (Divinely Inspired, p. 3). Ed DeVries added: “And as God breathed, as God spoke, men wrote,” and he quoted from Exodus 20:1 [“And God spake all these words”] and from Exodus 24:4 [“And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD”]. (Ibid.). Charles Swindoll noted: “When God revealed His truth for human writers to record, He ‘breathed out’ His Word” (Growing Deep, p. 62).

Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). David O’Steen wrote: “Revelation demands inspiration which is the process by which the Spirit of God gives the words of God in writing (2 Sam. 23:2, Ps. 45:1)” (Study Notes, p. 36). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). David Cloud noted: “The process of inspiration was something that was completed in the apostolic age” (Faith, p. 55). David Cloud defined or explained inspiration as “the process whereby the Scriptures were given by the Holy Spirit through holy men of old” (Why We Hold, p. 508). Jeff Farnham referred to “the process of God’s inspiring the Apostles by giving truth from His very mouth into the very ears of holy men of God” (God’s Forever Word, p. 145).

D. A. Waite wrote: “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Waite wrote: “The originals were given by the process of inspiration” (p. 47). Waite noted: “It is true that the process of inspiration applies only to the autographs and resulted in inspired Words—the original Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek being given by God’s process of breathing out His Words” (p. 56).

In his definition for the term inspiration, H. D. Williams wrote: “’It is a very technical Biblical term indicating a miraculous process and product” (Miracle, p. 11). H. D. Williams wrote: “Other ‘literal’ verses teach the process of ‘inspiration’ as men were ‘moved by the Holy Ghost’ to record the Words in the autographs, the Words on the original manuscripts, which is the product of ‘inspiration’” (p. 43). H. D. Willims noted: “The Scripture given in the original Words was God-breathed by a miraculous process” (p. 56). H. D. Williams asserted: “Inspiration is a very special process and product of God, which cannot be transferred and cannot be applied to man’s productions” (Pure Words, p. 19).

Douglas Stauffer maintained “that the process of inspiration is solely dependent upon God” (One Book One Authority, p. 457). William Byers wrote: “The process of inspiration is spoken of in II Timothy 3:16” (History of the KJB, p. 7). Peter van Kleech Sr. asserted: “The immediate inspiration of Scripture was a once-for-all, unique process applicable only to the original writings of Scripture or the autographa” (Exegetical Grounding, p. 33). Referring to the term inspiration, Bruce Lackey (1930-1988) wrote: “Scripture nowhere explains the process” (Why I Believe, p. 18). David Sorenson noted: “God has breathed out (i.e., spoken) the words which comprise the sum total of Scripture. That process is known as inspiration” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 177). Michael Bates maintained that “the process of inspiration is not repeated—it is completed” (Inspiration, p. 273). Steve Combs wrote: “A clear statement of the process and product of inspiration is found in Matthew 4:4” (Practical Theology, p. 34; Magnified, p. 42). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Dennis Kwok asserted: “The process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of God” (VPP, p. 23). Jack McElroy wrote: “Sounds like inspiration is a method or process, doesn’t it?” (Which Bible, p. 238).

Bryan Ross wrote: “Inspiration is the supernatural process whereby God the Holy Spirit moved upon human authors to have them record in writing those aspects of God’s revelation (written revelation) that He wanted mankind to possess forever (Isaiah 30:8)” (From This Generation, Vol. 1, p. 70). Charles Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Thomas Strouse wrote: “Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 43). Thomas Strouse asserted: “The autographa were the product of the process of inspiration, and consequently there were without error or inerrant” (p. 68). Thomas Strouse noted: “The Holy Ghost came upon holy but fallible men so that they were Divinely moved (pheromenoi) in the process of inspiration to produce the product of inspiration, namely the autographa” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 240). In his note on 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter Ruckman asserted: “The process of ‘inspiration’ is the Holy Spirit breathing His words through somebody’s mouth (2 Pet. 1:21) and these words then being written down” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 1591). Peter Ruckman wrote: “This clearly indicates that inspiration or God-breathing had to do with somebody breathing out of their mouth, speaking words, then somebody writing down the words that were spoken” (Theological Studies, Book 15, p. 15).

Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Jason Harris observed: “Inspiration is that process by which humans were supernaturally moved by the Holy Spirit to accurately record in the original autographs the very words that God breathed out” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 32). David Sorenson wrote: “The essence of verbal inspiration is that God has spoken whether to or through chosen penmen which then put into writing His Word (and its very words)” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 43). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32). Does 2 Timothy 3:16 state how scripture is given? Gordon Clark observed: “In ordinary language the word how always refers to a process” (Religion, Reason, p. 138). Did not this miraculous process of the giving of the Scriptures by direct inspiration to God to the prophets and apostles end with the completion of the New Testament? Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a verse that supports the relegation of inspiration as a term for this supernatural process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles?

 

[Logos1560]

James H. Sightler, M.D. (1937-2019)

​

Is James Sightler, M.D., a Greek scholar? Would he have a possible motive of trying to justify his father Harold Sightler's KJV-only teaching? Is James Sightler possibly following the claims of Gail Riplinger?


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.).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to post-NT translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations.

No, it is not "consistent, just, and logical" for you to speculate that the Preservation of the Inspiration would "in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations."

That typical 'General' vs 'Specific' carnal reasoning of yours, using a mind affected by the Curse of the Fall of Adam without the Aid of the Holy Spirit of God, might frame your bright idea about all this into a slam dunk win for you, but it is typically stupid to assert.

No, the spurious productions of intentionally altered, forged, abridged, repeatedly 'corrected', 'manuscripts' of sorts, resurfaced from the Occult Underground after hundreds of years, that have admittedly been over-written by nearly a dozen 'scribes' are not what they claim to be by any stretch of the imagination, and are most suited to only be dismissed out of hand and viewed with abhorrence and indignation, before being washed and burnt, and not included in "the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16" that refers to copies and especially even to post-NT translations, along with the Old Testament copies used by our Lord and the writers of the New Testament.

According to Vocabulary.com, 'univocally' means in a way that has only one possible meaning or interpretation, leaving no room for doubt or confusion. [1, 2]...
"There's no way to misunderstand something that's truly univocal — its meaning is consistent and obvious."

Would including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture?

Would your soul still have the Holy Spirit Dwelling inside you, if you expressed some imperfect behavior?

Inspiration does not always follow in the exact same set of tracks, as expectable variants, but error is not.

'Specifically', you desire for every point in the Letter of the Law to be reproduced perfectly, as if they were the Original Autographs Directly Inspired by God Himself, when Generally speaking, the Spirit of the Law would have everyone Compare Spiritual things with Spiritual, understanding that the manuscript evidence extant would unearth and remedy "any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture."

Would the later printing of copies of Scripture make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in the printing process?

Ask Jesus about the Scriptures He Used.

What do you consider an error? When, 95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees and 5% not don't agree with the 95% vast majority, but also don't agree with one another, then the Comparative Process, (which actually is 'a process'), rules the day. That result is Inspired by the Promises of God and as with the Preservation shown in the last seven English Translations of the Bible, they demonstrate a Super-Human extent in similarity.

These seven versions, just as some English examples, prove the Original Inspiration of God and, in like kind, God's Preservation of that Inspiration of His Word.

King James Bible
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Geneva Bible of 1587
"For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God,
and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,"

Bishops' Bible of 1568
"All scripture is geuen by inspiration of God,
and is profitable to doctrine, to reproue, to correction, to instruction which is in ryghteousnesse",

The Great Bible 1539
"All scripture geuen by inspiracyon of God,
is proffitable to teache, to improue, to amende and to instruct in ryghtewesnes",

Matthew's Bible of 1537;


Coverdale Bible of 1535
"For all scripture geue by inspiracion of God,
is profitable to teach, to improue, to amende, and to instructe in righteousnes,"

Tyndale Bible of 1526
"For all scripture geve by inspiracion of god
is proffitable to teache to improve to amende and to instruct in rightewesnes"

 

[Logos1560]

That typical 'General' vs 'Specific' carnal reasoning of yours, using a mind affected by the Curse of the Fall of Adam without the Aid of the Holy Spirit of God, might frame your bright idea about all this into a slam dunk win for you, but it is typically stupid to assert.

You are wrong to question my salvation and to suggest that I supposedly do not have the aid of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. Are you violating forum rules?

As a true believer, the Holy Spirit of truth indwells me, and He guides me just as much as you may claim that He guides you.

 

[Logos1560]

No, it is not "consistent, just, and logical" for you to speculate that the Preservation of the Inspiration would "in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations."

KJV-only author Steve Combs observed: “If 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to a copy or translation, then every time a translation is made, it is inspired, and every time a copy was made it was inspired” (Practical Theology of Bible Translating, p. 35; Translator’s Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus, p. 22; Magnified Above His Name, p. 43). Steve Combs wrote: “Copies and translations have to do with the transmission of Scripture through history. Inspiration pertains to the entrance of Scripture into history” (Translator’s Greek Grammar, p. 22; Magnified, p. 43).

Are all Bible translations Scripture in the same sense (univocally)? If Bible translations cannot exist without the indispensable process of inspiration, then it would be necessary for all Bible translations to be made by it. If all Bible translations are Scripture given by inspiration of God, then none of them are not Scripture.

 

[37818]

Not all writings are God breathed. Only God breathed writings are Holy Scriptures.

 

[Logos1560]

What do you consider an error? When, 95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees and 5% not don't agree with the 95% vast majority, but also don't agree with one another, then the Comparative Process, (which actually is 'a process'), rules the day. That result is Inspired by the Promises of God and as with the Preservation shown in the last seven English Translations of the Bible, they demonstrate a Super-Human extent in similarity.

You already know that I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text, and yet you seem to try improperly to associate me with it.

You seem to have been misinformed since 95% of the extant manuscript evidence does not agree word for word and jot and tittle for jot and tittle with each other. Are you repeating the claim of unreliable KJV-only sources? Can you actually demonstrate that every reading in the KJV has 95% extant manuscript support?

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals. To dump them into a ‘Byzantine’ basket is untenable” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 28; Identity of NT Text IV, p. 46). Wilbur Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained that “the great bulk of Byzantine manuscripts defies all attempts to group them” (Identity IV, p. 39; see also Fuller, True or False, p. 231). Wilbur Pickering maintained that “a typical ‘Byzantine’ MS will have 3-5 variants per page” (God has Preserved, p. 92). Gregory Lanier asserted: “Four of the key Byzantine witnesses for Acts and the Catholic Epistles (minuscules 18, 35, 319, 617) vary among themselves—that is, contain more than one reading for a given unit of text—8 percent of the time, representing nearly one thousand textual units” (Hixon, Myths and Mistakes in NT Criticism, p. 115). Peter Malik observed: “The notion of a stable Byzantine text is even less applicable to the manuscripts of Revelation, where the Byzantine tradition Is split into at least three major groups, and even these are far from uniform” (Ibid., footnote 26, p. 158).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3).

Nope. You missed it. 'Inspiration' can not exclusively be said to be 'a process', or 'way' "God directly Gave the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles or for the way that the Words Proceeded from the Mouth of God to the Prophets and Apostles." There is much more to it.

Matthew 4:4 states,
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that Proceedeth Out of the Mouth of God,”

I see these extremely shortsighted pronouncements by men, as being just that. They have their angle which simply amounts to unbelief. No one has, or can take Authority over the Word of God and that is just what folks are attempting to do and it hurts their feelings to think they'd have to give up their air of supremacy over everything about the Bible, just like as we've seen all those who's intent has been nothing more than to Change the Word of God, into something that appeals to their flesh.

"I'm saying that we've either go to admit this is the Word of God or we have to flee to the church, or to human reasoning or human experience as being the final authority. If there is no Word of God today, we have no other recourse. If God has not given us His Word, we have to decide what is God's Word. That's human reasoning.

"By the way, basing a doctrine on human experience is idolatry. Basing a doctrine on the church being the final authority is idolatry. The church is the idol. Letting the pope speak ex cathedra and saying that it is God Who is speaking is idolatry. You're making him as God.

"Human reasoning says that what we can reason, we'll believe. That's idolatry. So the truth is, you've got one choice of two. Either this Bible is the Word of God or we have no other place to turn but to idolatry. Did you hear me? Either this is the Word of God, or there is no place to turn but idolatry. Our three choices are human reasoning, human experience or the church, and they are each a form of idolatry." The Divine Inspiration Of The Bible

"The God of the Bible does not lie (Titus 1:2).
"His Word is to be Trusted (Psalm 19:7-11).
"If He says something we are to accept it and obey it (John 15:10).
"It is Satanic to question God's Holy Word (Genesis 3:1; John 17:17),
because when you do you question His very character - you challenge His right to be God!

"Who is man that men should do this (Job 38: 2-40:1)?

"Now, this can sound very scary to have someone tell you that it is wrong to question the Bible, but this writer did not say that you are not to question Bible teachers. In fact the Bible Commands you to question them (Acts 17:10-11; 1 John 4:1), yet at the same time you have a responsibility as a Christian to thoroughly study the Bible and accept it as Truth (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:14-17). Jot And Title Inspiration


According to the Scriptures themselves, "Scripture teaches that the words of Scripture are Inspired by God, and thus the entirety of the canonical Scriptures are Inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16", and as we see below,

"God did not Inspire people like Moses, Jeremiah, or Matthew; rather, the Words that He Gave to mankind through them are Inspired."

"Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, “Given by Inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16,
and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version."​

"Scripture teaches that the Words of Scripture are Inspired by God, and thus the entirety of the canonical Scriptures are Inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16. God did not Inspire people like Moses, Jeremiah, or Matthew; rather, the words that He Gave to mankind through them are Inspired.

"Since “Inspired” means “God Breathed,” and Matthew 4:4 states, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that Proceedeth Out of the Mouth of God,” believers are to live by Inspired words.

"Since the present tense verb “Proceedeth” in Matthew 4:4 represents continuing action, as is also found in other very closely related uses of the verb,1 the Breath of God, that is, Inspiration, remains in the Words of the copies of the Autographs, and men are to live by every Word of those Inspired copies.

"The fact is that neither 2 Timothy 3:16 nor Matthew 4:4 actually refer to inspiration as a process, rather than a product.2

(See link for much more original material).

1 See Matthew 15:11, 18; cf. Luke 4:22; Revelation 1:16; 19:15. Note the unquestionable continuing action in Revelation 22:1. A denial of continuing action in John 15:26 would overthrow the Classical Doctrine of the Interpersonal Relations in the Trinity by denying the Spirit’s Eternal Procession from the Father (and the Son).

"Note that while ekporeuomai is not very common in the aorist or perfect tenses, it is found in these forms outside the NT (2 Samuel 19:8 (LXX), aorist, clearly a one time action; Numbers 31:28, 36; Deuteronomy 11:10 (LXX), perfect tense, retaining the fundamental idea of the Greek perfect), although not within the NT itself.

2 “The Greek word of this passage—Theopneustos . . . says of Scripture . . . that it is Breathed Out by God, ‘God-Breathed,’ the Product of the Creative Breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine Product, without any indication of how God has Operated in Producing them. . . .

"Paul declares, then, that ‘every scripture,’ or ‘all scripture’ is the Product of the Divine Breath, ‘is God-Breathed,’ [and so] he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the Product of a specifically Divine Operation” (pg. 60, Revelation and Inspiration, Benjamin B. Warfield. Elec. acc. Rio, WI: AGES Digital Software, 2006; orig. pub. New York: Oxford University, 1927).

"Nevertheless, the Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, J. Parkhurst (2nd ed. 1794; elec. acc. Google Books: Find, Preview, and Read Books Online.) defines qeo/pneustoß as: “from qeo/ß, God, and pepneusai, 3rd pers. sing. perf. pass. of pnew, fut. pneusw, to breathe. Breathed or Inspired by God, Divinely Inspired, Given by Divine Inspiration . . . 2 Tim 3:16.”

"The perfect tense root underlying qeo/pneustoß would make the idea of a completed action in which the Scriptures were dictated, with the result that the Breath of God remains upon the Words, possible, and thus (secondarily) gives some justification for employing the word Inspired for the process of Giving the Biblical Autographs.

"However, the actual use of Theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16, and frequently in Koiné Greek, for a product, indicates that considering actual Original Language copies of Scripture as both Inspired and profitable is the correct exegesis of the verse. The predicate adjective wÓfe÷limoß, profitable, in 2 Timothy 3:16, does not specify a process, but a product—so does the predicate adjective qeo/pneustoß.

"Of course, if Scripture has the quality of being qeo/pneustoß, when it came into being, it must have been Supernaturally Spoken by God, so there is nothing wrong with (secondarily) speaking of Inspiration as the 'process' of the Giving of the Autographs.

"To deny, however, the fact that 2 Timothy 3:16 ascribes the Breath of God as a Quality to the Autographs of Scripture and to shut up Theopneustos to only being the Giving of the Autographs is to neglect the exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16, and the idea expressed in that text by the Holy Ghost through the Apostle Paul, (primarily, that "all Scripture" is Inspired of God) because of a secondary, although certainly legitimate, sense of the word."​

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

What do you consider an error? When, 95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees and 5% not don't agree with the 95% vast majority, but also don't agree with one another, then the Comparative Process, (which actually is 'a process'), rules the day. That result is Inspired by the Promises of God and as with the Preservation shown in the last seven English Translations of the Bible, they demonstrate a Super-Human extent in similarity.

These seven versions, just as some English examples, prove the Original Inspiration of God and, in like kind, God's Preservation of that Inspiration of His Word.

Do you realize that our All-Knowing God, not only Knows everything that will ever happen, He Knows all the infinitesimal other variations of 'what could have happened'.

There were a myriad of prime opportunities to introduce some Scientific errors, or a contradiction in anything, or to screw up the language in a Translation at a blue million different points, for example, instead of Working them all together, with over 40 writers, over centuries to have them all fit together like a hand in a glove, across the board.

God had His Hand in the Creation of The Holy Bible and His Breath, too, in every Word that Goes Forth from His Mouth.

Man didn't do that. The Bible is more Perfect than man could have ever dreamed in a million years to accomplish.

The Word of God is essentially Perfect. Would you care to make it more Perfect? Where nothing absolutely is required to be added to it, or taken away from it? Or do you think that your effort to remove the Inspiration from copies and Translations of the Bible will keep you busy enough?

You already know that I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text, and yet you seem to try improperly to associate me with it.

Nothing I said had anything to do with associating you with advocating or recommending the Critical Text, defence.

You seem to have been misinformed since 95% of the extant manuscript evidence does not agree word for word and jot and tittle for jot and tittle with each other.

Your utter dependence upon adding a "Specific" criteria to a "General" concept, by your addition of "does not agree word for word and jot and tittle for jot and tittle with each other" means nothing at all, actually. You're just spinning your wheels.

Are you repeating the claim of unreliable KJV-only sources?

I didn't bring up anything about "agree word for word and jot and tittle", or "for jot and tittle (to agree) with each other", for you to say that is on a "KJV-only source", but those things are imbedded into your brain to where you may never know there is anything else out there. It's certainly the only thing that comes out of it.

I'll source someone KJV-only any time I prefer to, if they are speaking the Truth of the Word of God, like I will anyone else. I just leave their genuine Quackery's about "double-inspiration" and the King James being superior to the Original Language Manuscripts and most everything else Ruckman had for the tenants of his teachings, for them to try to defend those Doozies on their own. I understand a lot of what they are 'trying to say', but they have overstated their case.

Can you actually demonstrate that every reading in the KJV has 95% extant manuscript support?

Who said anything about the King James Version "has 95% extant manuscript support"? that you want them to think they are obligated to demonstate anything like that to you?

You are truly Eat Up with your distain for anything having to do with the King James Bible.

My 'Comparison Process' could just as easily be applied to a Court situation, or to people who've witnessed an accident, etc. 100 people saw it. 95 saw it the same and 5 saw it different and different from each other.

Those 5 you throw out as inadmissible.

The remaining 95, in the case of a Faithful Translation of the Bible, are an Anointed, Preserved, Inspired Scripture, by the Superintending Supernatural Unction of the Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God.

The Bible we hold in our hands is an Inspired Miracle.

You can't take it out of it.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Wilbur Pickering asserted:

Wilbur Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained

Wilbur Pickering maintained

Gregory Lanier asserted:

Peter Malik observed:

The guys who wrote the 1943 novelty song "Mairzy Doats" ("Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey") pontificated that they knew it sounds like gibberish until you say it fast, translating to: "Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy."

Let that be a Blessing to you.

 

[Logos1560]

What do you consider an error? When, 95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees and 5% not don't agree with the 95% vast majority, but also don't agree with one another, then the Comparative Process, (which actually is 'a process'), rules the day.

Your utter dependence upon adding a "Specific" criteria to a "General" concept, by your addition of "does not agree word for word and jot and tittle for jot and tittle with each other" means nothing at all, actually. You're just spinning your wheels.

Your own "95% of the manuscript evidence extant agrees" assertion is a specific criteria, not a general concept.

You made a specific claim that was not and is not true. You specifically claimed that the 95% agree. You show that you did not state the truth. "No lie is of the truth" (1 John 2:21c). You overstated your case. Are you suggesting that your specific assertion means nothing at all?

I properly applied your specific 95% claims of agreement consistently by clarifying what it would mean ["word for word" and "jot and tittle for "jot and tittle"]. The article "Jot and Tittle Inspiration" by George Bruns to which you provided a link confirms my clarification. The truth is consistent so applying your specific criteria consistently is a proper test for it. I did not at all spin my wheels by exposing your specific assertion as being not true. You would be spinning your wheels to reject the stating of the truth that exposed your incorrect specific claim.

 

[Logos1560]

Jot And Title Inspiration

In this article to which you provided a link, Pastor George Bruns wrote: "The only question that remains then is this, if God preserved every jot and tittle of His word in what Bible version do we find it. The answer is simple, in the only version that does not take away from the word of God, the King James Version."

Other KJV-only authors make similar claims to those made by pastor George Bruns. Jack Koons asserted: “When the translators of the King James Bible did their translation from the ‘original’ languages into English, they translated each word in the ‘original’ language, into the English word which represented what was said in the ‘original’ language” (What Is so Special about the King James Bible, p. 327). Danny Jack wrote: “How many words of God have to be taken out of your Bible before it is no longer 100% God’s words? Just One? That would be good enough for me” (Superiority of the King James Bible, p. 100). Troy Clark declared: “God wants every word equally preserved” (Perfect Bible, p. 45). Phil Stringer declared: “If you believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, every word matters” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). Charles Keesee declared: “It is rather strange to pretend that we have a perfect Bible, but we don’t have all the words that are supposed to be there” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 32). Charles Keesee wrote: “We need a Bible that has every word that God inspired” (p. 258). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (p. 31).

One can take these very words and assertions made by George Bruns and other KJV-only authors and demonstrate that a consistent application of them would in effect disprove or refute their own exclusive only claims for the KJV.

Do you claim that what Pastor George Bruns wrote is the truth and that you agree with his assertions? Does the KJV preserve every jot and tittle of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? Is it the truth to assert that the KJV does not take away from the word of God which would be asserting that the KJV does not omit any words of God that are in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

Does the KJV actually provide English words for all words in its underlying original-language texts of Scripture as some KJV-only authors clearly suggested or directly asserted? How does the KJV keep intact or preserve by accurate or inerrant translation those original-language words of Scripture for which it gives no English word/rendering? Does the KJV actually have each and every original-language word of Scripture accurately or perfectly translated into English when it has no English rendering for many of them? Did the KJV translators steal some of God’s words by putting them in marginal notes or by omitting or eliminating them altogether? Did the KJV translators regard the inspired original-language words of God that they omitted to be holy and pure? Is God against the 1611 KJV for its stuffing on purpose some of His words into marginal notes? Was the throwing away of some original-language words of God by the KJV translators being completely faithful to their underlying texts? By omitting many words, does the KJV change or reverse what God had already done before 1611?

According to a consistent application of some KJV-only assertions, is the KJV corrupted because of not having an English word for every original language word of Scripture? Does subtracting on purpose from the words of God by not giving any English word for many of them make the KJV translators into “Bible correctors” according to a consistent application of some KJV-only assertions? Should there be any exceptions to God’s commands about not adding to Scripture and not taking away from it? Were the KJV authorized by God to disobey His commands by omitting many words and adding many words? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only assertions, does the KJV in effect undermine the doctrine of inspiration by omitting some original-language words that were inspired by God? By giving no English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture, does the KJV make it impossible for men to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? Does the KJV meet this claimed requirement of God for containing all the words of God? Does the KJV fail the test of containing every word? Do KJV defenders come under the authority of the preserved original-language words of Scripture for which the KJV gives no rendering? Is the KJV to be suggested unintentionally to be an incomplete Bible since it does not have an English word for every original-language word of Scripture? Did KJV-only advocates believe their own assertions truly and consistently if they do not practice them and do not apply them directly and consistently to the KJV?

The KJV does not actually have an English word for every word that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

 

[Logos1560]

Ask Jesus about the Scriptures He Used.

Did the Isaiah scroll that Jesus read or used in Luke 4 agree completely with the Hebrew Masoretic text at Isaiah 61:1-2?

G. K. Beale wrote: “Jesus goes to Nazareth, attends a synagogue service, and is handed the scroll of Isaiah the prophet” (Handbook, p. 57). John Meade and Peter Gurry asserted that “This ‘book’ [Luke 4:17] must be a scroll, not a codex like a modern book, since Luke is careful to say that Jesus unrolls it and rolls it back up” (Scribes, p. 31). The 1855 Union Bible Dictionary also noted: “Thus in Luke 4:17, the phrase ‘opened the book,’ would properly read ‘unrolled the scroll,’ and in verse 20, for ‘closed the book,’ read ‘rolled up the volume,’ or ‘scroll’” (p. 114). At Luke 4:17, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists has the following rendering “unrolling the volume” instead of “opened the book.” Luke 4:17 is translated in 1986 Green’s Literal Translation as follows: “And the roll of Isaiah the prophet was handed to Him. And unrolling the book, He found the place where it is written.” The beginning of Luke 4:20 is literally translated: “And rolling up the roll.” Concerning Luke 4:20, A. T. Robertson observed that Jesus “rolled up the roll and gave it back to the attendant” (Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 57). Richard Longenecker affirmed that Jesus “reads Isaiah 61:1-2, rolls up the scroll, hands it to the attendant” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 54).


KJV defenders David Reid and Bryan Ross wrote: “”It could not be clearer that what the Lord was doing in Luke 4:18-19 was reading from the manuscript that He held in His hands. And yet what the Lord read does not have verbatim identicality with the passage in Isaiah [Isaiah 61:1-2]. It is not even close” (Myth, p. 59). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “Luke/LXX recovering of sight to the blind, isn’t in the Masoretic Text, and the Luke/LXX to preach/proclaim deliverance/liberty to the captives restates the Masoretic, opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Hebrew Masoretic, p. 31). Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Perhaps the Nazareth scroll deviates from what becomes the Masoretic tradition” (Septuagint, p. 151). Gregory Lanier and William Ross noted: “’Recovering the sight to the blind’ does not have a direct match in the Hebrew but matches the Old Greek verbatim” (Ibid.). Timothy Law affirmed: “In 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah to declare that his ministry is, among other things, to proclaim ‘recovery of sight to the blind.’ This is nowhere in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 and instead comes as a direct citation from the Septuagint” (When God Spoke, pp. 101-102). Richard Longenecker noted: “In Luke 4:18, quoting Isaiah 61:1, the LXX’s (‘recovering the sight to the blind’) appears, rather than the MT’s reading (‘opening of the prison to those who are bound’” (Biblical Exegesis, p. 46). Richard Longenecker commented: “Despite the quotation’s general Septuagintal character, Luke omits the line about healing the brokenhearted and adds from Isaiah 58:6 the statement ‘to set at liberty those who are bruised’” (Ibid.). Douglas Woodward suggested that Jesus was reading from a scroll with an earlier Hebrew Vorlage text that differs from the later [post-A. D. 100] Hebrew Masoretic text as he asserted: “This was not the same Hebrew reading as what became the Masoretic Text” (Septuagint, p. 61). Michael Heiser suggested: “Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint” (I Dare, p. 124). Douglas Woodward listed Isaiah 61:1 as one of the “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (Rebooting, Part 1, p. 107).