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]

In 2 Timothy 3:15, we see these words:

the holy scriptures

Then, some similar words are mentioned in the next verses 2 Timothy 3:16:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture

The 'scriptures' that those verses are talking about are Alive, "Because the Word of God is Quick, and Powerful,
and sharper than any Two-edged Sword, Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow, and is a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart", as we see from Hebrews 4:12.

I this case in 2 Timothy, again, Timothy himself was told by Paul 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", 2 Timothy 3:15.

Jesus also said that His Spirit Gives the New Birth as a Direct Witnesses with His Words.

Jesus Knew His Words would be Recorded and Preserved for us to this day, because He Is God, and He also said that His Words are "Spirit and Life,"

He said, "It is the Spirit that Quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the Words that I Speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life", John 6:63.

So, while I'm saying they are Spirit, they are not The Holy Spirit, still when could we ever imagine The Holy Spirit not Baring Direct Testimony and Witness to God's Words, ANY TIME THEY ARE VIEWED?

Especially, since God said in Isaiah 55:11; "So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth Out of My Mouth:
it shall not Return unto me void, but it shall Accomplish that which I Please,
and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it."

In Timothy's case, God's Word Accomplished salvation, by the Enabling Power of The Holy Spirit by;

the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

And to anyone. it is said that all the scriptures may be profitable "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness": right there in the same context where God said that His Words were able to Make Timothy Wise unto salvation;

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So, they Accomplish everything God Sends them to do, not to mention this;.

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So, what I make of all this is that the "All scriptures" that the Bible says are "Inspired" are exactly the same ones God is talking about in 2 Timothy, when He said, it is "the scriptures" that saved Timothy and that Accomplishes all these other great Godly things.

By that I mean that I believe that the Bible we hold in our hand Contains "the scriptures" and is therefore, "Inspired" just like God tells us "all scripture" are, when Paul says, in 2 Timpthy 3:16;
"All scripture is Given by Inspiration of God".

I say that the scriptures that "Accomplish that which I Please,
and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it, God said, that can Make one Wise unto salvation, that are not only "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness":

but the Bible says
"the Word of God is Quick, and Powerful, and sharper than any Two-edged Sword,
Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow, and is a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart",

and in addition to all that the Bible tells us that by the scriptures,
"the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".

Aren't God's Words Anointed by The Holy Spirit to Enable them to Spiritually Accomplish all those things in the Spirit Realm?

That is "Inspiration" of God.

If so, I believe the Bible itself teaches us right there in 2 Timothy 3 that "all scriptures" that are defined as being "Given by Inspiration of God" and gives us that usage of the word "scripture" where they were able to Make Timothy Wise unto salvation is saying that, by Virtue of being "scripture", they are also just as Anointed and, therefore, just what the Bible tells us they are; "Inspired."

God is saying that His "scriptures" are Inspired, and if we think we need to "believe" that the "Given by the Inspiration of God" means they were only Directly "Breathed" by the "Breath of God" in the Original Autographs, we read again Isaiah 55:11 where God tells us in His scriptures it is when "My Word be that Goeth Forth Out of My Mouth;" from God's Mouth and God certainly has Breath.

The same Words that are the "scriptures" we have, and just like the scriptures, that Jesus and the Apostles had and used as Inspired documents, can and did and will do all the great Spiritual Accomplishments mentioned above because they too are God-Breathed when they Go Forth from His Mouth and are heard or read at any time and are "Given by" and endowed with the "Inspiration of God", that they Maintain in their written form.

 

[Logos1560]

By that I mean that I believe that the Bible we hold in our hand Contains "the scriptures" and is therefore, "Inspired" just like God tells us "all scripture" are, when Paul says, in 2 Timpthy 3:16;
"All scripture is Given by Inspiration of God".

You are reading "the KJV" or Bible translations into the term "Scripture" at 2 Timothy 3:16. 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, but the KJV does not assert that the term inspiration refer to the post-NT process of the making of Bible translations.

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

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. 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, p. 35; Translator’s Greek Grammar, p. 22; Magnified, 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).

Including all printed translations of Scripture would in effect seem to make inspiration include any errors made by translators or printers and include the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying Bible translations in different languages. Thus, consistency and just measures in applying the word “all” to Bible translations would be a serious problem for exclusive KJV-only reasoning attempting to apply it selectively or particularly concerning only one English translation. If the term Scripture in a univocal sense at 2 Timothy 3:16 is assumed to include Bible translations, KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it should apply only to the KJV and not also to the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible and to post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV. Can a universal term be limited to only one particular thing made from it? Could some KJV-only advocates attempt to read into or to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16 a specific conclusion about translating that has not clearly and legitimately been shown to be actually stated or taught by the verse? Do KJV-only advocates attempt to go beyond what 2 Timothy 3:16 states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not directly and clearly refer? Could KJV-only advocate strain, stretch, or even possibly twist a verse to try to make it speak their own KJV-only sense or to fit their man-made KJV-only scheme?

 

[Logos1560]

If so, I believe the Bible itself teaches us right there in 2 Timothy 3 that "all scriptures" that are defined as being "Given by Inspiration of God" and gives us that usage of the word "scripture" where they were able to Make Timothy Wise unto salvation is saying that, by Virtue of being "scripture", they are also just as Anointed and, therefore, just what the Bible tells us they are; "Inspired."

Your belief in your interpretation does not make it true and scriptural. This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of post-NT Bible translations is by inspiration. This verse does not say that the breath of God is put on all Scripture translations or that God breathed on or into them.

The Greek adjective in 2 Timothy 3:16 does not define the Greek noun for Scripture. While an adjective can describe a certain noun, that single adjective would not usually be the total definition of that noun. In the Bible, the Scriptures are described by several adjectives that may indicate or describe its attributes or qualities so that no one of them is its definition. Descriptive adjectives are not the same as prescriptive commands or instructions. While all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, being “profitable” is not the definition for the term Scripture. Is everything that qualifies as “profitable” Scripture? Something can be “profitable” and perhaps even profitable for doctrine/teaching without it being Scripture. This adjective “profitable” is used of Scripture in the same verse (2 Tim. 3:16) to which KJV-only advocates appeal for their claimed definition so why is it not included as part of the definition that they claim is given in this verse? The two Greek adjectives for God-breathed and profitable are grammatically parallel in describing Scripture. Peter Van Kleeck Sr. & Jr. wrote: “”Inspiration’ and ‘profitable are grammatically parallel requiring both adjectives to be semantically equivalent. The function of one of these words in the sentence cannot be altered without effect the other also” (Theological Grounding, p. 115).

While the words of Scripture are pure (Ps. 19:8, Prov. 30:5, Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), being “pure” is not the definition of the term Scripture. Is it interesting that the descriptive adjective pure is not claimed by KJV-only advocates to be the definition of Scripture? Something can be pure without it being Scripture. Is everything that qualifies to be called “pure” Scripture? Something can even go thru a purification process without it being Scripture. The word of the LORD is tried (Ps. 18:30), but that does not mean that being “tried” would be the correct definition for the term Scripture. Something can be tried without it being Scripture. Being “perfect” is not the definition of scripture even though the word of God is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25). The words of Scripture are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, John 119:160), but the adjective “true” is not actually the definition of the term “Scripture.” Something can be true without it being Scripture. Being “wonderful” is not the definition of Scripture even though its testimonies are wonderful (Ps. 119:129).

Do you interpret 2 Timothy 3:15 correctly? Does non-scriptural KJV-only eisegesis insert foreign meanings into this verse (2 Tim. 3:15)? Do KJV-only advocates not accept what 2 Timothy 3:15 actually states? Do some of them try to suggest or imply that 2 Timothy 3:15 teaches that the process of copying the Scriptures is by inspiration when the verse does not say or teach that? Does this misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or eisegesis concerning 2 Timothy 3:15 affect their understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16, leading them to misunderstand and misinterpret it? Is this eisegesis in their interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:15 a necessary or essential aspect of their KJV-only teaching?

This verse (2 Timothy 3:15) does not actually state that Timothy’s Jewish mother, Timothy’s Jewish grandmother, or Timothy had scrolls, a codex, or a physical book with a complete copy of the Old Testament in their possession or in their hands. According to fair, sound hermeneutics, this verse does not state that Timothy had possession of complete copies of the OT Scriptures. The verse did not even directly say that Timothy’s mother, Timothy’s grandmother, or Timothy had read the holy Scriptures. The verb read is not used in 2 Timothy 3:15. This verse stated that Timothy has known the holy scriptures, and he could have known them by more than one way. This verse directly and plainly referred to knowledge of the holy Scriptures, not possession of them. Do some KJV-only authors possibly attempt to place a one-volume codex or printed book outside its proper historical time frame by unintentionally suggesting the existence of one before A. D. 100?

While the term for holy Scriptures in the verse refers to scroll copies, the verse itself does not state that Timothy had possession of them as KJV-only authors claimed and read into it. One way that someone can know Scripture is by hearing it. Thus, Timothy could have known the holy scriptures first by hearing them quoted by his mother and grandmother and later by hearing them read at a synagogue or the temple. Timothy’s mother and grandmother may also have known the scriptures by hearing them read, and then they repeated what they remembered and knew of the Scriptures to Timothy. In the Old Testament, it is noted that the priests were to read the law to all Israel every seven years (Deut. 31:9-13). The Jews often had known the Scriptures orally by either hearing them read or hearing a prophet of God speak the words of God.

 

[Logos1560]

By that I mean that I believe that the Bible we hold in our hand Contains "the scriptures" and is therefore, "Inspired" just like God tells us "all scripture" are, when Paul says, in 2 Timpthy 3:16;
"All scripture is Given by Inspiration of God".

Are you indicating that you agree with Peter Ruckman's definition?

Peter Ruckman wrote: “If it is ‘SCRIPTURE,’ God gave it; if God gave it, the method He used was by inspiration” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 355). Peter Ruckman asserted that “given by inspiration of God” “is the definition of ‘scripture’ in the ‘scripture’” (King James Onlyism, p. 29), but he did not actually prove his claim to be true and scriptural. This definition of Peter Ruckman differs and even conflicts with his definition of the term at 2 Timothy 3:16 in his 2009 Reference Bible.

Gail Riplinger wrote: “No textbooks define ‘scripture’ which ‘is given by inspiration’ by citing the Bible’s usage of the word ‘scripture’” (Hazardous, p. 1174). Gail Riplinger declared: “Inspired scripture must be something that all men must have” (p. 1177).

Do KJV-only authors clearly demonstrate that they merely let the Scriptures themselves define Scripture and inspiration, and do they present those definitions?

 

[Mike B]

If so, I believe the Bible itself teaches us right there in 2 Timothy 3 that "all scriptures" that are defined as being "Given by Inspiration of God" and gives us that usage of the word "scripture" where they were able to Make Timothy Wise unto salvation is saying that, by Virtue of being "scripture", they are also just as Anointed and, therefore, just what the Bible tells us they are; "Inspired."

Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Through reading and hearing the righteous Word of God, the Holy Spirit brings spiritual
conviction to the heart of a lost sinner, and that lost sinner then seeks salvation in Christ
Jesus.

The power of the Gospel is not weakened by translations or bible versions, and the Lord uses
His Word to do His will. When the Holy Spirit is involved in the salvation of a lost soul, I don't believe
that the most absolute literalism in the translation of God's word is required. Desired, yes, but let's
not limit the power of the Lord.

The Gospel itself is "special words" in any language or dialect. It has power given to it by the Lord.
You can call them anointed, inspired or supernatural, but God uses what He will to do His will.

 

[Logos1560]

Perhaps it has never occurred to some KJV-only advocates that their definition, understanding, and interpretation of the term inspiration and of the term Scripture may not be sound or perfect. What is their clear, precise, sound definition and understanding of inspiration that can be applied consistently, soundly, and justly in the same sense (univocally) including both before and after 1611? Perhaps KJV-only advocates have not stuck with scriptural usage when they take the term inspiration for the process by which Scripture was given to the prophets and apostles and then try to apply it to the different process of post-NT translation. KJV-only advocates do not soundly demonstrate that the term inspiration for the process of how all Scripture is given to the prophets and apostles is taught in Scripture to be the term for the process of how Scripture is copied or how Scripture is later translated. Have some KJV-only advocates in effect or in practice privately interpreted “all Scripture” to mean only the KJV?

KJV-only author David Cloud observed: “The idea that the King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration’ is to confuse divine inspiration—which is the process whereby the Scriptures were given by the Holy Spirit through holy men of old—with translation” (Why We Hold, p. 508).


The term Scripture would refer to words of God that are written, but the process of writing would not be its definition. According to its usage and meaning in the Scriptures, the noun Scripture does not include all words that ever have been written. Words can be written without them being Scripture. Words can even be written in or added to a copy of the Scriptures without them being Scripture. Marginal notes or commentary can be added to a copy of the Scriptures without the added words being Scripture. According to truths suggested in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19), would words added by men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture? Would any errors written by imperfect men in a copy of the Scriptures become Scripture according to a correct definition of it? Would any actual errors introduced by printers in a printed edition of Scripture become Scripture according to its correct definition? The term Scripture refers to actual words given by inspiration of God, but this process of the giving by inspiration is not actually stated to be its definition as some KJV-only advocates try to assume and claim. Since the process of writing clearly is not the definition for the term Scripture, could it also be asserted that the process of giving by inspiration is not its definition? The term inspiration or God-breathed for how God gave the words to the prophets and apostles is not actually the definition of Scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

In 2 Timothy 3:15, we see these words:

Then, some similar words are mentioned in the next verses 2 Timothy 3:16:

The 'scriptures' that those verses are talking about are Alive, "Because the Word of God is Quick, and Powerful,
and sharper than any Two-edged Sword, Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow, and is a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart", as we see from Hebrews 4:12.

In order to try to justify their claims that the KJV is inspired, do some KJV-only advocates also attempt to interpret some possible figures of speech such as personification concerning Scripture or the word of God literally? If a figure of speech is understood and interpreted literally, it can lead to misunderstanding.

Gail Riplinger asserted: “The word of God must be breathing and alive to impart life” (In Awe, p. 334). Gail Riplinger wrote: “The words of the Holy Bible have the same powerful life-giving breath in them that spoke the world into existence” (p. 332). Gail Riplinger wrote: “The Bible does not tell us exactly how this inspiration (breath) is preserved and passed on generation after generation, but the Bible is still breathing and alive (quick) today” (p. 334). Gail Riplinger asked: “How can you tell if you have the English Bible which has the life giving breath of the Spirit of God?” (p. 335). Gail Riplinger claimed: “Only in the ‘miraculous’ KJV do accented syllables and matching letter sounds pulse at equally proportioned intervals, echoing the rhythm of the life-giving breath of a living, breathing speaker—the Spirit of the living God” (p. 23). Gail Riplinger asserted: “The real word of God will be characterized by those qualities of rhythm, balance, order, and beauty seen in the creation, a product of God’s breath (Ps. 33:6)” (p. 338). Gail Riplinger declared: “The KJB must be the word of God which ‘liveth and abideth forever’” (Hazardous, p. 1179). Gail Riplinger asked: “Can God’s Word be ALIVE without God’s breath?” (Landmark Anchor, July, 2009, p. 6).

William Byers wrote: “It’s God-breathed and that means it’s got God’s life in it” (History of the KJB, p. 38). Appealing to Hebrews 4:12, Al Lacy asserted: “The Bible speaks of itself as a LIVING PERSON’ (Can I Trust, p. 193). Al Lacy wrote: “The Bible is ALIVE, as a PERSON is alive who, can SEE and THINK and PERCEIVE and DISCERN and DEAL with men” (Ibid.). Al Lacy declared: “Our Bible today is a DEAD BOOK unless the Holy Spirit is STILL inspiring it …. STILL breathing life into it” (p. 197).

Perhaps at least one or two KJV-only authors may take this idea that the Bible is alive as a person even further. Allen Domelle asserted: “When a person attacks whether the KJB is inspired, then in a round about way they are attacking Jesus Christ for He is the Word of God” (Battle for God’s Word). After quoting John 6:63, Mike Holloway wrote: “The Word of God, the Bible, is alive because God’s Word is also the Holy Spirit” (Common Sense, p. 122). Mike Holloway wrote: “The KJV is God’s divine seed, because it is the Word of God. It is not a tool of the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit in printed form” (pp. 122-123). Mike Holloway asserted: “The Holy Spirit IS God’s Word” (p. 123). G. John Rov [pen name for Gary Rovarino] claimed: “As the God Man he [Jesus Christ] is the 1611 King James Bible made flesh” (Called of God, p. 174). Gary John Rov asserted: “Jesus is one with the word in spirit and life. And this word is the 1611 King James Bible” (p. 45). John Rov claimed that “he [Satan] attempted to stop the Son of God who was the actuality of the 1611 King James Bible, the Word, made flesh” (p. 63). John Rov maintained that “the Bible is the embodiment of Jesus” (Concealed, p. 23). John Rov suggested that “the Bible is a book that turned into a person and that Jesus is a person who turned into a book” (p. 13). John Rov claimed: “As we mature, despite concealment, we see the actual Jesus and the actual Bible in the 1611 King James Version” (p. 47). Michael Hoggard wrote: “The first thing we will notice is that ‘the word of the LORD’ is used as a personification of God. This could only mean that the expression is used to identify Jesus Himself” (By Divine Order, p. 195). Michael Hoggard wrote: “The idea that the Bible and Jesus Christ are one in the same, is a principle that is to be accepted by all who claim to believe in the Lord” (p. 197).

Do the Scripture’s statements about the word of God being alive or living possibly suggest use of a figure of speech called personification? E. W. Bullinger defined or explained personification as “a figure by which things are represented or spoken of as persons; or, by which we attribute intelligence, by words or actions, to inanimate objects or abstract ideas” (Figures of Speech, p. 861). Just as personification is used concerning wisdom in Proverbs 8 and 9, it could also be used concerning the word of God when it is said to be living or alive (1 Pet. 1:23, Heb. 4:12). Do some KJV-only advocates try to suggest that Scripture has the breath of God in the same exact sense or way that Adam had the breath of God breathed into him, making him a living person? Do the Scriptures actually teach that the word of God is literally and physically alive in the same exact sense (univocally) as a human being is alive? Do the Scriptures have all the characteristics or qualities of a living human being? Do some KJV-only advocates suggest that the written word of God has a literal mind with the ability to think for itself apart from the Holy Spirit or has a living body so that it can reproduce itself? Kevin Vanhoozer wrote: “The Bible is not a fourth hypostasis alongside the Father, Son, and Spirit that instantiates and upholds a divine nature” (Drama, p. 227). Kevin Vanhoozer asserted: “But neither revelation nor biblical inspiration means that the text itself has become a surrogate divine agent” (Ibid.).

Many examples of figures of speech being used concerning the word of God or the Scriptures could be given. The word of God is as a fire (Jer. 20:9, Jer. 23:29). God’s word is a light (Ps. 119:105). The Scriptures are a lamp (Ps. 119:105, Prov. 6:23). The word of God is a sword (Eph. 6:17). God’s word is a hammer (Jer. 23:29). The Scriptures are a mirror or glass (James 1:25, 2 Cor. 3:18). The seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11). Should a figure of speech be understood and interpreted literally? Would anyone suggest that God’s word is a literal, physical hammer?

 

[SovereignGrace]

In 2 Timothy 3:15, we see these words:

Then, some similar words are mentioned in the next verses 2 Timothy 3:16:

The 'scriptures' that those verses are talking about are Alive, "Because the Word of God is Quick, and Powerful,
and sharper than any Two-edged Sword, Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow, and is a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart", as we see from Hebrews 4:12.

I this case in 2 Timothy, again, Timothy himself was told by Paul 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", 2 Timothy 3:15.

Jesus also said that His Spirit Gives the New Birth as a Direct Witnesses with His Words.

Jesus Knew His Words would be Recorded and Preserved for us to this day, because He Is God, and He also said that His Words are "Spirit and Life,"

He said, "It is the Spirit that Quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the Words that I Speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life", John 6:63.

So, while I'm saying they are Spirit, they are not The Holy Spirit, still when could we ever imagine The Holy Spirit not Baring Direct Testimony and Witness to God's Words, ANY TIME THEY ARE VIEWED?

Especially, since God said in Isaiah 55:11; "So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth Out of My Mouth:
it shall not Return unto me void, but it shall Accomplish that which I Please,
and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it."

In Timothy's case, God's Word Accomplished salvation, by the Enabling Power of The Holy Spirit by;

And to anyone. it is said that all the scriptures may be profitable "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness": right there in the same context where God said that His Words were able to Make Timothy Wise unto salvation;

So, they Accomplish everything God Sends them to do, not to mention this;.

So, what I make of all this is that the "All scriptures" that the Bible says are "Inspired" are exactly the same ones God is talking about in 2 Timothy, when He said, it is "the scriptures" that saved Timothy and that Accomplishes all these other great Godly things.

By that I mean that I believe that the Bible we hold in our hand Contains "the scriptures" and is therefore, "Inspired" just like God tells us "all scripture" are, when Paul says, in 2 Timpthy 3:16;
"All scripture is Given by Inspiration of God".

I say that the scriptures that "Accomplish that which I Please,
and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it, God said, that can Make one Wise unto salvation, that are not only "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness":

but the Bible says
"the Word of God is Quick, and Powerful, and sharper than any Two-edged Sword,
Piercing even to the Dividing Asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow, and is a Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart",

and in addition to all that the Bible tells us that by the scriptures,
"the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".

Aren't God's Words Anointed by The Holy Spirit to Enable them to Spiritually Accomplish all those things in the Spirit Realm?

That is "Inspiration" of God.

If so, I believe the Bible itself teaches us right there in 2 Timothy 3 that "all scriptures" that are defined as being "Given by Inspiration of God" and gives us that usage of the word "scripture" where they were able to Make Timothy Wise unto salvation is saying that, by Virtue of being "scripture", they are also just as Anointed and, therefore, just what the Bible tells us they are; "Inspired."

God is saying that His "scriptures" are Inspired, and if we think we need to "believe" that the "Given by the Inspiration of God" means they were only Directly "Breathed" by the "Breath of God" in the Original Autographs, we read again Isaiah 55:11 where God tells us in His scriptures it is when "My Word be that Goeth Forth Out of My Mouth;" from God's Mouth and God certainly has Breath.

The same Words that are the "scriptures" we have, and just like the scriptures, that Jesus and the Apostles had and used as Inspired documents, can and did and will do all the great Spiritual Accomplishments mentioned above because they too are God-Breathed when they Go Forth from His Mouth and are heard or read at any time and are "Given by" and endowed with the "Inspiration of God", that they Maintain in their written form.

Inspired scripture was only found in the original writings, as others are copies of them. No copy is inspired.

 

[Logos1560]

Desired, yes, but let's
not limit the power of the Lord.

Believers who disagree with non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning are not limiting the power of the LORD.

It is erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching that seems to try to limit the word of God and the power of God to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Through reading and hearing the righteous Word of God, the Holy Spirit brings spiritual
conviction to the heart of a lost sinner, and that lost sinner then seeks salvation in Christ
Jesus.

The power of the Gospel is not weakened by translations or bible versions, and the Lord uses
His Word to do His will. When the Holy Spirit is involved in the salvation of a lost soul, I don't believe
that the most absolute literalism in the translation of God's word is required. Desired, yes, but let's
not limit the power of the Lord.

The Gospel itself is "special words" in any language or dialect. It has power given to it by the Lord.
You can call them anointed, inspired or supernatural, but God uses what He will to do His will.

But God has used many versions to bring the lost to Himself. That does not make any of them inspired. He’s not limited to any one version of the Bible, nor the TR or CT.

 

[Deacon]

Inspiration is God’s supernatural activity wherein he moved his chosen prophets to receive his divine truth and express in written form under his authority.
The process of inspiration is distinct from transmission and translation, which may be guided by God's providence.
Copies and translations carry the authority of the Scriptures only to the extent that they accurately reflect the words of the originally inspired Word of God.

~~~~~~~~~
5. Let it be stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record—the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.
Torrey, R. A., Charles et.al. The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. 1909.;
Gray, James M. Chapter I: The Inspiration of the Bible—Definition, Extent and Proof. Vol. 2.
~~~~~~~~

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy - ARTICLE X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Rob

 

[Mike B]

Believers who disagree with non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning are not limiting the power of the LORD.

It is erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching that seems to try to limit the word of God and the power of God to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

Seriously...........did you actually read what I wrote?

This was an honest concern of mine, in that every post I make is now going to be read through the
lens of "He's KJV Only", and people will respond in the negative as a result, regardless of the comment
I make or the subject it references. I use only the KJV because I know it and trust it, but I am not "KJV-only".

I said:

The power of the Gospel is not weakened by translations or bible versions, and the Lord uses
His Word to do His will. When the Holy Spirit is involved in the salvation of a lost soul, I don't believe
that the most absolute literalism in the translation of God's word is required. Desired, yes, but let's
not limit the power of the Lord.

The Gospel itself is "special words" in any language or dialect. It has power given to it by the Lord.
You can call them anointed, inspired or supernatural, but God uses what He will to do His will.

Logos: I was referring to the POWER of the Words of God, regardless of version. When a lost soul
reads in Romans 3:

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

That lost person may suddenly understand their spiritual condition, and that is due to the Holy
Spirit using those words to awaken them to the Gospel. The words themselves matter, and every
decent translation I know of (granted, I don't know many), from whatever source gets the
Gospel right.

In my thinking, the Bible (any version that is not apostate) is not just words on paper...it is a supernatural
book, written by our supernatural God, and it supernaturally changes lives. Perhaps I just don't know the
proper term, but the Words of God, correctly translated in any language or version, are special, and powerful.


Deacon: I appreciate your correction on the proper application of the terms. I got a bit carried away and
used those terms in an effort to express the power of God's Word and how He uses it to save souls and
change lives. Is there a correct term for that?

 

[Logos1560]

Seriously...........did you actually read what I wrote?

I read what you wrote. Perhaps you did not read carefully what I wrote. You seem to read what I post through a different lens than how I wrote it. I did not claim that you were KJV-only. The opening post in this thread is advocating a typical KJV-only claim that suggests that the KJV is inspired. Perhaps you did not consider my comments in light of the subject of this thread presented in the opening post.

I properly addressed a statement you made in light of the subject of this thread. Your response did not disagree with the KJV-only reasoning displayed in that opening post. You seemed to indicate some agreement with the points of that opening post.

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only author William Grady wrote: “God the Holy Ghost has already spent 3,500 years displaying His willingness to empower both His written and printed Scripture—despite whatever degree of human deficiencies may have accompanied the process” (Given By Inspiration, p. 277). Does William Grady’s admission conflict with the new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 and with claims of inspiration for the KJV?

KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: “The Bible plainly teaches that divine inspiration produces inerrancy. A doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture that allows for errors is heresy” (Why We Hold, p. 511). Matthew Barrett wrote: “Inerrancy is the necessary corollary of inspiration. They are two sides of the same coin, and it is impossible to divorce one from the other” (God’s Word Alone, p. 25). 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” (Ibid.). Bill Fortenberry asserted: “Biblical inerrancy is the logical consequence of biblical inspiration” (False Friends, p. 15).

David Cloud declared: “If it [the KJV] was ‘was given by inspiration’ in 1611 it would not have needed any sort of correction” (Why We Hold, p. 467; Answering the Myths, p. 80). 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).

Does the KJV-only form of the doctrine of divine inspiration allow for errors in the 1611 KJV while still trying to claim it to be inspired? If so, according to David Cloud, that would be heresy.

 

[Mike B]

As a refresher, here is what I quoted:

If so, I believe the Bible itself teaches us right there in 2 Timothy 3 that "all scriptures" that are defined as being "Given by Inspiration of God" and gives us that usage of the word "scripture" where they were able to Make Timothy Wise unto salvation is saying that, by Virtue of being "scripture", they are also just as Anointed and, therefore, just what the Bible tells us they are; "Inspired."

I agree with the above statement, which I did not relate to being in reference to any specific
version, nor is the KJV even mentioned.

My comment was about the miracle of God's word, and that beyond just being words printed on
a page, there is a supernatural power to God's Word.

The post was an attempt at an "AMEN!" to highlight how God's uses His word to save souls. Perhaps
my thoughts were poorly expressed.

Your post mentioned "KJV-only reasoning" twice in reply to a comment that did not say or imply anything
that I felt could even be construed as "KJV-only reasoning". Hence, my frustration.

 

[Logos1560]

Your post mentioned "KJV-only reasoning" twice in reply to a comment that did not say or imply anything
that I felt could even be construed as "KJV-only reasoning". Hence, my frustration.

The poster in his title and in the opening post referred to the Bible translation that he holds in his hands [which would be the KJV] as inspired. Claiming that a Bible translation [the KJV] is given by inspiration of God would constitute KJV-only reasoning.

Alan Dale Gross wrote: "By that I mean that I believe that the Bible we hold in our hand Contains "the scriptures" and is therefore, "Inspired" just like God tells us "all scripture" are, when Paul says, in 2 Timpthy 3:16; "All scripture is Given by Inspiration of God".

 

[Mike B]

The poster in the opening post referred to the Bible translation that he holds in his hands [which would be the KJV] as inspired.

And I was supposed to know this....HOW?

Been married for 24 years, and I'm just now beginning to grasp reading my wife's mind; have only
been a member here for almost three months....I'm not at that level yet to make such presumptions.

 

[Logos1560]

Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text.

Wilbur Pickering, one of your sources, wrote: "We understand that the human authors of Scripture wrote under inspiration, by which we mean that the Holy Spirit superintended the process with the result that they wrote just what He wanted them to write (respecting the means that rule the use of language). The authors were inspired, protected from error, but not the copiers down through the years.

There is nothing like actually collating a number of MSS to give one an appreciation for the divine preservation of the Text, a process more complicated than inspiration. (Satan was not allowed to interfere in the inspiring, but was in the preserving.)" (God Has Preserved His Text! The Divine Preservation of the New Testament, p. 207).