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

[Ascetic X]

The plain teaching of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that accurate copies of the Bible have the Breath of God upon them in the same way that the Original Manuscripts did."

And who determines what these “accurate copies of the Bible” are?

Are they the KJV, NIV, NASB, RV, Weymouth?

Where in this verse are accurate copies mentioned?

2 Timothy 3:16,17

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

 

[Deacon]

I agree. Translations are not inspired by God. They are translations. Yet the Bibles we have (the KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV) are God's inspired Word.

What I mean is that the English words are not divinely inspired. But words are symbols for ideas and what these words communicate is God's Word.

Translation are not inspired by God however they draw their AUTHORITY from the originally inspired Word of God.

Rob

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

What you are ignoring is the NIV, NKJV, ESV, HCSV are also accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is Inspired.

But this is not secondary Inspiration. These are translations of the inspired Word of God which is communicated through the older text and the TR alike.

As one outstanding example, "since the Authorized Version is an accurate Translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is Inspired.

"To avoid this conclusion one would need to say that the King James Bible is the uninspired Word of God, and it cannot produce Faith (Romans 10:17), it is not Quick, Powerful, Sharp, and so on, and believers are not to Live by it (Matthew 4:4).[vii]

"Furthermore, Timothy was Commanded in 2 Timothy 4:2 to Preach the Inspired Scripture of 2 Timothy 3:16.[viii] Since the Originals were not available to him, but the copies or Translations he was to Preach—and certainly he would have Preached the Old Testament in Greek Translation to the church at Ephesus—were still God-Breathed, Inspiration must refer to the Product Revealed by God, the Canonical Words of Scripture, and thus accurate copies and Translations of the Autographs are Inspired."

"Two qualifications to the above must be made, however.

"1.) Only Greek and Hebrew words are directly inspired. Translated words are derivatively inspired.[ix] The directly inspired Greek and Hebrew cannot be changed, jot or tittle.

"Translated words can be changed and still have the breath of God. Dropping the “eth” from KJV verbs would not make the translation lose the breath of God. One could, in like manner, say that the KJV is derivatively preserved, sharp, quick, powerful, faith-producing, and so on.

"This fact does not by any means make English, rather than the directly, verbally, plenarily inspired and perfectly preserved Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) words the Christian’s authority.

"The original language text is verbally, plenarily inspired, while a translation that is entirely accurate has plenary inspiration, but not the verbal inspiration of the original language,[x] and is entirely dependent for its authority upon the original language text.

"The substance of the meaning conveyed by God in Greek and Hebrew words is transferred into the language of a translation, but God did not dictate English, French, Spanish, or Latin words to the penmen of the Bible; He revealed Himself in Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words.[xi]

2.) When Translations other than the KJV are accurate, in those parts they are also (derivatively) inspired. The NASV, for example, possesses the Breath of God in the parts where it is not mistranslated nor is translated from a corrupt Greek or Hebrew text.

"This fact explains why believers who use English translations other than the KJV can be built up spiritually, and why unbelievers can be converted through the instrumentality of modern Bible versions."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

But this is not secondary Inspiration. These are translations of the inspired Word of God which is communicated through the older text and the TR alike.

You again try to claim incorrectly that translating that was part of the process of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets is the same thing as post-NT translating in the KJV.

"This use of Theopneustos for 'product, rather than 'process', is the clear use of the Greek word in related Christian/Koiné Greek texts. For instance:[xii]

"Papias 10:1 Regarding, however, the Divine Inspiration [Theopneustos] of the book [i.e., the Revelation of John] we think it superfluous to speak at length, since the blessed Gregory (I mean the Theologian) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear witness to its genuineness.[xiii] [Papias, who lived around the turn of the First Century, reproduced by Andrew of Caesarea (563-637), Preface to the Apocalypse]

"Here the book itself, the Greek words, 'the product', is referred to as Inspired. 'Process' is not in view, but 'product'.

"Sibylline Oracles 5:406-407 But God, the great Father of all within whom is the Breath of God [Theopneustos], they were accustomed to Reverence with Holy sacrifices and hecatombs.[xiv]

"Here the unknown writer of the Sibylline Oracles refers to the Breath God puts within people as Theopneustos. It is simply “Breath from God.”

"Consistency thus requires that believers either refrain from calling translated Scripture “the Word of God” or allow the use of the word Theopneustos for anything that has the Breath of God in it, including Translated Scripture. An examination of the use of Theopneustos in its Koiné background leads to this conclusion.

"The affirmation that Translations Possess the Breath of God in a Derived sense is by no means an affirmation of Ruckmanism.

"Peter Ruckman’s 'doctrine' is that the English of 'the King James Version is superior to the Greek and Hebrew words God Promised to Preserve' (Matthew 5:18), and thus involves a denial of the perfect Preservation of the Words God Gave in the once-and-for-all completed Process of giving the Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7).

"Ruckman affirms that a Move of God like that mentioned in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611, a repudiation of the completion of the Canon and a rejection of the Warning of Revelation 22:18-19.

"Scripture, on the other hand, denies that 2 Peter 1:16-21 pertains to any other than the Original Writers of the Scripture when they penned the Autographs, but maintains that the Original copies do not lose the Breath of God when they are copied or (in a Derived sense) when they are accurately Translated.

"Indeed, recognizing the Scriptural fact that the Breath of God Remains upon copies and (in a Derived sense) accurate Translations destroys the foundational appeal of the Ruckmanite error.

"Ruckmanism claims that only if one affirms that another Supernatural act of Giving the Scripture such as is described in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611 with the Authorized Version can one have a Bible in his hands today that is Living, Powerful, Sharper than any Two Edged Sword, and Truly the Word of God.

"The fact that the Breath of God Remains in accurate copies and accurate Translations allows the believer to affirm that he does indeed have the very Word of God in his hand when he holds a King James Bible, as one example of dozens in English and several dozen in other lanugages, without adopting the Heresy of a re-opening of the Canon in 1611 or denying the Promises of Scripture that every Hebrew and Greek word God gave in the Autographs is still available and is still the ultimate Authority for the Christian (Matthew 4:4; 5:18; Isaiah 59:21)."

You do not claim inspiration was supposedly retained in the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') of which the KJV is a revision.

Since when?

The fact of actual errors introduced by men in the 1611 edition of the KJV would conflict with any claim of inspiration for it.

"...so the papists, they plead for their Vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the Council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes; nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even assert that the Scriptures, in their Originals, ought to submit to, and be corrected by their version; which is absurd and ridiculous.

"Let not now any be uneasy in their minds about translations on this account, because they are not upon an equality with the Original text, and especially about our own; for as it has been the Will of God, and appears absolutely necessary that so it should be, that the Bible should be Translated into different languages, that all may read it, and some particularly may receive benefit by it;

"He has Taken Care, in His Providence, to Raise Up men capable of such a performance, in various nations, and particularly in ours; for whenever a set of men have been engaged in this Work, as were in our Nation, men well skilled in the Languages, and Partakers of the Grace of God; of Sound Principles, and of Integrity and Faithfulness, having the Fear of God before their eyes; they have never failed of producing a Translation worthy of acceptation;

"and in which, though they have mistook some words and phrases, and erred in some lesser and lighter matters; yet not so as to affect any Momentous Article of Faith or Practice; and therefore such Translations as ours may be regarded as the Rule of Faith.

"And if any scruple should remain on the minds of any on this account, it will be sufficient to remove it, when it is observed, that the Scriptures, in our English Translation, have been Blessed of God, either by reading them in it, or by explaining them according to it, for the Conversion, Comfort, and Edification of thousands and thousands. And the same may be said of all others, so far as they agree with the Original, that they are the Rule of Faith and Practice, and alike useful."

"...and that He still Continues to Raise Up such who are able to Defend the Translation made, against erroneous persons, and enemies of the Truth; and to correct and amend it in lesser matters, in which it may have failed, and clear and illustrate it by their learned notes upon it.

"Having premised these things, I now proceed to prove the claim of the Scriptures to a Divine Authority, which may be evinced from the following things.

1. First, From the subject matter of them.

1a. In general there is nothing in them unworthy of God; nothing contrary to His Truth and Faithfulness, to His Purity and Holiness, to His Wisdom and Goodness, or to any of the Perfections of His Nature; there is no falsehood nor contradiction in them; they may with great propriety be called, as they are, "The Scriptures of Truth", and the "Word of Truth", #Da 10:21 Eph 1:13." From: His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 1, Chapter 2

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The two Greek adjectives for God-breathed and profitable are grammatically parallel in describing Scripture.

Correct, they both modify the noun, "Scripture".

New Thread; PETER RUCKMAN'S Tenants are Indefensibly Heretical and Seen as Pure Error by Me and Most Bible Believers.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

And who determines what these “accurate copies of the Bible” are?

God's people by the Process of Comparison.

Where in this verse are accurate copies mentioned?

2 Timothy 3:16,17

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

By comparing Scripture with Scripture, Spiritual things with Spiritual, as presented in immediate context from the previous verse; 15; "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."

Some notable notations from the article; Inspiration (Theopneustos), 2 Ti 3:16, and the KJV / KJB / AV

[ix] While it is true that the specific phrase 'derivatively inspired' is not found anywhere in the Bible, it is equally true that the word 'translation' is absent. The implications of this paragraph, and the Doctrine of Derivitive Inspiration, are simply the good and necessary consequences of the fact that Accurately Translated Scripture is still Scripture, and one can accurately Translate Scripture in more than one way.

"Inspiration is Derived in Translated Scripture because the words in the receptor language Derive all their Authority from the Original Language texts that are correctly Translated.

"The fact that Translated words can be modified and still have the Breath of God is the necessary consequence of the fact that “he doeth” and “he does” are both correct translations of the appropriate Greek or Hebrew phrases.

"Thus, one has no right to object to the use of the word 'Derivitive' in connection with Inspiration, based on the absence of the word in the Bible, in connection with Translations, unless he likewise objects to and abstains from the use of the word 'translation' itself, never refers to Scripture as 'verbally' or 'plenarily Inspired', abstains from speaking of 'monotheism', or 'the Trinity', and so on.

"The use of the term Derivative Inspiration is simply a way of expressing the necessary distinction between the perfect and absolutely unchangable Original language texts given by God once for all in the Autographs (2 Peter 1:16-21; Jude 3) and Accurately Translated copies.

"Not the word Theopneustos alone, but all the terms that pertain to the Original language texts of the Bible only pertain in a Derived way to copies. Since translated Scripture is only in a Derived sense Scripture, the Word of God, Quick/Living, Powerful, Profitable, and so on, it is, in like manner, Inspired in a Derived sense.

[x] "Nonetheless, in a Derivative way, texts like “the Words that I Speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life” (John 6:63) are applicable to the words of Accurate Translations, although translated words are unlike the Unchangeable, ultimately Authoritative Greek Words Christ Originally Spoke which were Recorded by the Apostle John through the Dictation of the Holy Spirit.

[xi] "The affirmation of absolute Verbal and Plenary Inspiration for the Original language text, but of a secondary Derivative Inspiration for Accurate Translations, is the classic position assumed by Baptists and Protestants in the Reformation and post-Reformation era.

"Richard Muller explains the historic Protestant position:

[Alongside] the insistence of the Reformed that the very Words of the Original are Inspired, the theological force of their argument falls in the substance or res rather than on the individual words: Translations can be Authoritative quoad res because the Authority is not so much in the words as in the entirety of the Teaching as distributed throughout the Canon. . . .

"[T]he issue of “things” (res) and “words” (verba) . . . is crucial to the Protestant Doctrine of Scripture and is, as many of the other elements of the Protestant Doctrine, an element taken over from the medieval tradition and rooted in Augustine’s Hermeneutics. . . .

"[T]he words of the text are signs pointing to the Doctrinal “things.” This distinction between signa and res significata, the sign and the thing signified, carries over into the language typical of scholastic Protestantism, of the words of the text and the substance of the text, of the Authority of Translations not strictly quoad verba but quoad res, according to the substance or meaning indicated by the original. . . .

"[O]nly the [original language] sources are Inspired (theopneustoi) both according to their substance (quoad res) and according to their words (quoad verba)[.]

"This must be the case, since Holy men of God Spake as they were Moved by the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, Who Dictated to them not only the substance (res) but also the very words (verba).

"For the same reason, the Hebrew and the Greek are the norms and rules by which the various versions are examined and evaluated. . . . [There is] a distinction between Authenticity and Authorship quoad verba, which belongs only to the Hebrew and Greek Originals, and Authenticity and Authority quoad res, which inheres in Valid Translations. . . .

"Thus Translations can be used, but with the reservation that only the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the Authentic norms of Doctrine and the rule by which Doctrinal controversy is to be decided[.]

"Versions that are congruent with the sources are indeed Authentic according to substance (quoad res); for the Word of God [may be] Translated into other languages: the Word of God is not to be limited, since whether it is Thought or Spoken or Written, it remains the Word of God.

"Nonetheless they are not Authentic according to the idiom or word, inasmuch as the words have been explained in French or Dutch. In relation to all Translations, therefore, the Hebrew and Greek texts stand as antiquissimus, originalis, and archetypos.

"Thus, Translations are the Word of God insofar as they permit the Word of God to Address the reader or hearer: for Scripture is most certainly the Word of God in the things it Teaches and to the extent that in and by means of it Power of God Touches the conscience.

"Even so, in Translations as well as in the Original the Testimony of the Holy Spirit Demonstrates the Graciousness of God toward us. All Translations have Divine Authority insofar as they correctly render the original: the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of Divine Truth, which remains one and the same in all idioms. (pgs. 269, 326-327, 403, 416, 427-428, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; volume 2, Holy Scripture: The cognitive foundation of theology (2nd ed.), Richard Muller. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003; quotations and original sources not reproduced)."

 

[Logos1560]

"Even so, in Translations as well as in the Original the Testimony of the Holy Spirit Demonstrates the Graciousness of God toward us. All Translations have Divine Authority insofar as they correctly render the original: the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of Divine Truth, which remains one and the same in all idioms. (pgs. 269, 326-327, 403, 416, 427-428, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; volume 2, Holy Scripture: The cognitive foundation of theology (2nd ed.), Richard Muller. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003; quotations and original sources not reproduced)."

Post-NT Bible translations have proper derived, acquired, or secondary authority as the word of God which they derive from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Claiming derived inspiration is different than acknowledging derived authority since the term inspiration may be understood to suggest that God breathed on the translation or that the translation directly has God's breath on it in the same sense as the originals had. How is your view claiming inspiration for the KJV clearly distinguished from what Peter Ruckman writes?

In the March, 2009, issue of his publication Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Peter Ruckman wrote: “So instead of claiming ‘inspiration’ for what they wrote, the King James translators said that what they WROTE (‘scripture’) was ‘GIVEN’ to them ‘BY INSPIRATION’; i.e., God BREATHED on the Scriptures they produced and gave them life (Heb. 4:12)“ (p. 17).

In his note at Job 32:8, Peter Ruckman wrote: “When we say the KJV is ‘the holy scriptures’ in English (Rom. 1:2), or ‘given by inspiration’ (2 Tim. 3:16), we mean that the Holy Spirit of God guided its translators in their work and then breathed on that Book when they got through with it” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 759). In his commentary on the book of Psalms, Peter Ruckman wrote: “A Book ‘given by inspiration of God’ must have the ‘breath of God’ on it” (Vol. 1, p. 200). Peter Ruckman is quoted as saying: “The King James Bible is God guided and God breathed—in a sense in which I can claim it to be scripture” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, June, 1984, p. 4).

In his article entitled “Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?”, Herb Evans claimed: “God breathed the breath of life into the Scripture, never to be breathed into again. The Bible that we have today (A.V. 1611) is alive! Inspired! It still has God’s Breath in it and will never ever expire” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, March, 1981, pp. 3, 8).

William Grady asserted: “If God’s breath rested on the very originals He intended to preserve, wouldn’t common sense dictate that the final ancestor would also have to retain inspiration?” (Final Authority, p. 22).

 

[JonC]

Translation are not inspired by God however they draw their AUTHORITY from the originally inspired Word of God.

Rob

I agree that the translation itself (the English words) are not inspired. But I believe that legitimate translations are the actual Word of God because they communicate God's inspired Word.

An example of what I mean can be found in the Bible. The New Testament often quotes the Old Testament scriptures.

The NT accurately communicates God's Word given in the OT but rarely do they use the exact words used in the OT.

I do not believe Scripture should be read as a reference document or code book. Words are symbols for ideas and thoughts which express meaning.


For example, if I want to communicate that a man is big I could say "that man is big".

You could day I said "that dude is huge". The words are not my exact words but your choice does not change what I wanted to communicate.

God's Word transcends man's efforts to translate His Word into different languages. People get caught up in misapplying the "jot and tittle" quote to literally mean strokes of the pen instead of the Law only passing away when it was fulfilled in Christ. Jesus was not talking about pen strokes but the Law.

 

[JonC]

@Deacon

Sorry, my post was a bit of a mess.

What I mean is when we hold our Bibles we are holding God's inspired word. But His Word is greater than words on paper. His Word is what He is expressing/ communicating through words on paper.

People get hung up on David's census. Were there 800000 and 500000 or 1100000 and 470000 fighting men?. But is the percise number the point of the passage? Was God trying communicate to us the exact number reported to David and men somehow missed up the report OR is God communicating something other than a census report?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Claiming derived inspiration is different than acknowledging derived authority since the term inspiration may be understood to suggest that God breathed on the translation or that the translation directly has God's breath on it in the same sense as the originals had.

"since the term inspiration may be understood to suggest that..."

and yet when someone by Faith can believe that:
"Not only does the Bible claim to be a Divine revelation but it also asserts that its original manuscripts were written “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth” (I Cor. 2:13). The Bible nowhere claims to have been written by inspired men—as a matter of fact some of them were very defective characters—Balaam for example—but it insists that the words they uttered and recorded were God’s words.

"Inspiration has not to do with the minds (of the Translators, or) of the writers (for many of them understood not what they wrote (I Peter 1:10–11), but with the writings themselves.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” and “Scripture” means “the writings.”

Faith has to do with God’s Word and not with the men who wrote it (or Translated it)—these are all dead long since, but their writings remain.

"A writing that is inspired by God self-evidently implies, in the very expression, that the words are the words of God."

A. W. Pink: Divine Inspiration of the Bible - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

A lot of terms "may be understood to suggest" a lot of different things, at times.

I see that you are equating 'God breathed on the translation'
and that it is saying the same as 'the translation directly has God's breath on it in the same sense as the originals had.'

So, you are saying that "Claiming Derived Inspiration" is "Claiming Direct Inspiration",

A.) when you say that 'the translation, that is "Claiming Derived Inspiration",

B.) at the same time " directly has God's breath on it
in the same sense as the originals had', then, "Claiming Direct Inspiration".

"Claiming Derived Inspiration" is not "Claiming Direct Inspiration."

A. 'Derived' does not equal B. 'Direct.'

Post-NT Bible translations have proper derived, acquired, or secondary authority as the word of God which they derive from the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Right. And the Almighty Authority of their Author.

God is the Inspirer of all that.

The Old Testament and New Testament Writters of the Bible weren't Inspired, much less and Translators.

It is the Words of God that He Always has had Knowledge of that are Inspired Scripture.

From our perspective we see a 'Translation' as something other than simply HAVING GOD'S SAME WORDS, but that are being seen by us from a slightly different viewpoint, called our own Language, than in the condition they were in, when in the Source Language. One is a Black and White Replica of the Full Color Originals.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

How is your view claiming inspiration for the KJV clearly distinguished from what Peter Ruckman writes?

The clear distinction is that Ruckman claimed a Direct and Immediate MIRACULOUS INSPIRATION
and my claim for the King James and other Faithfully Translations by the Comparison of the accurate Manuscripts extant, is that they are PROVIDENTIALLY INSPIRED by Virtue of Content being Derived from their Author having been Divine.

God Initially Breathed them into existence in the original Inspired Autographs and His Words which are Inspired Scripture and Remain God Breathed as the Words of His Mouth, with no need for any copying or Translation Process or people or printers to be 'Inspired'.

You write that Peter Ruckman wrote any number of different views regarding the word 'inspiration', some of which are below. To irresponsibly pick from any and all of those various descriptions he defines as what he may or my have not believed, and then slovenly and wildly guessing that some vague seeming similarity between them and what you think someone might believe, may be able to supply you with the ability to accuse the brethren of being Dyed in the Wool proponents of all nine wacky and false teachings of Ruckman.

Or you just determine and make the decision on your own about what they believe as being anything which you can try to associate them with Ruckman's Quackery, and in so doing slander them out to be some more nutcases without even any walking around sense.

That way the discussion of why there is nothing you have to say positive about the modern versions ever happens and you only have acquired this entirely fraudulent smearing capability of bashing the King James Bible and its devoties, while not accually having any clear understanding of what they do and don't believe in reality, and all for a paycheck probably.

How much are you selling out the King James for?

Who sent you?


"The affirmation that Translations possess the Breath of God in a Derived sense is by no means an affirmation of Ruckmanism.

"Peter Ruckman’s doctrine is that the English of the King James Version is superior to the Greek and Hebrew words God Promised to Preserve (Matthew 5:18), and thus involves a denial of the Perfect Preservation of the words God Gave in the once-and-for-all completed Process of giving the Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7).

"Ruckman affirms that a move of God like that mentioned in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611, a repudiation of the completion of the Canon and a rejection of the warning of Revelation 22:18-19.

"Scripture, on the other hand, denies that 2 Peter 1:16-21 pertains to any other than the Original writers of the Scripture when they penned the Autographs, but maintains that the Original copies do not lose the Breath of God when they are copied or (in a Derived sense) when they are accurately Translated.

"Indeed, recognizing the Scriptural fact that the Breath of God Remains upon copies and (in a Derived sense) accurate Translations destroys the foundational appeal of the Ruckmanite error.

"Ruckmanism claims that only if one affirms that another Supernatural Act of Giving the Scripture such as is described in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611 with the Authorized Version can one have a Bible in his hands today that is Living, Powerful, Sharper than any Two Edged Sword, and Truly the Word of God.

"The fact that the Breath of God Remains in accurate copies and accurate Translations allows the believer to affirm that he does indeed have the Very Word of God in his hand when he holds a King James Bible and other Faithful Translations by the Comparison of the accurate Manuscripts extant without adopting the heresy of a re-opening of the Canon in 1611 or denying the Promises of Scripture that every Hebrew and Greek word God Gave in the Autographs is still available and is still the Ultimate Authority for the Christian (Matthew 4:4; 5:18; Isaiah 59:21)."

Inspiration (Theopneustos), 2 Ti 3:16, and the KJV / KJB / AV

2 Tim 3:16 indicates that "inspiration" (Theopneustos) is a quality of Scripture; accurate copies and translations of the Bible (TR/KJV) are still inspired.

faithsaves.net

the King James translators said that what they WROTE (‘scripture’) was ‘GIVEN’ to them ‘BY INSPIRATION’;

Did they say that? Really?

Where?

God BREATHED on the Scriptures they produced and gave them life (Heb. 4:12)“ (p. 17).

All the Words of God that have Emitted from His Spokesman and Mouthpiece, the Eternal Logos, from Eternity Past have been Inspired since then and always are and will be.

God has more to say about His Word than you do, in Hebrews 4:12;

"For 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."

Has God used His Word to be "a Discerner of the thoughts and intents" of your heart, yet?

"A writing that is inspired by God self-evidently implies, in the very expression, that the words are the words of God. To say that the inspiration of the Scriptures applies to their concepts and not to their words; to declare that one part of Scripture is written with one kind or degree of inspiration and another part with another kind or degree, is not only destitute of any foundation or support in the Scriptures themselves, but is repudiated by every statement in the Bible which bears upon the subject now under consideration.

"To say that the Bible is not the Word of God but merely contains the Word of God is the figment of an ill-employed ingenuity and an unholy attempt to depreciate and invalidate the supreme authority of the Oracles of God. All the attempts which have been made to explain the rationale of inspiration have done nothing toward simplifying the subject, rather have they tended to mystify.

"It is no easier to conceive how ideas without words could be imparted, than that that Divinely revealed truths should be communicated by words. Instead of being diminished the difficulty is increased. It were as logical to talk of a sum without figures or a tune without notes, as of a Divine revelation and communication without words.

"Instead of speculation our duty is to receive and believe what the Scriptures say of themselves."

A. W. Pink: Divine Inspiration of the Bible - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

In his note at Job 32:8, Peter Ruckman wrote: “When we say the KJV is ‘the holy scriptures’ in English (Rom. 1:2), or ‘given by inspiration’ (2 Tim. 3:16), we mean that the Holy Spirit of God guided its translators in their work and then breathed on that Book when they got through with it” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 759).

That may be one of the many different waffling he groped around about, so the "we say" and "we mean" junk he says are on him and all his Heresies.

“When we say the KJV is ‘the Holy Scriptures’ in English (Rom. 1:2), or ‘Given by Inspiration’ (2 Tim. 3:16), we mean that the Holy Spirit of God guided its translators in their work and then breathed on that Book when they got through with it” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 759).

The Holy Spirit didn't have to take any new Action on what was already an Inherent Attribute Contained in God's Words.

"What the Bible teaches about its own Inspiration is a matter purely of Divine testimony, and our business is simply to receive the testimony and not to speculate about or seek to pry into its modus operandi. Inspiration is as much a matter of Divine Revelation as is Justification by Faith. Both stand equally on the Authority of the Scriptures themselves, which must be the Final Court of Appeal on this subject as on every question of Revealed Truth."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

In his commentary on the book of Psalms, Peter Ruckman wrote: “A Book ‘given by inspiration of God’ must have the ‘breath of God’ on it” (Vol. 1, p. 200).

Why didn't he just say, "an Anointed Book is Anointed" and leave it at that?

"The teaching of the Bible concerning the Inspiration of the Scriptures is clear and simple, and uniform throughout. Its writers were conscious that their utterances were a Message from God in the highest meaning of the word.

“And the Lord said unto him (Moses), Who hath made man’s mouth?
or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind?
Have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth,
and teach thee what thou shalt say” (Exod. 4:11–12).

“The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue” (II Sam. 23:2).

“Then the Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth
and the Lord said unto me,
Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth” (Jer. 1:9).

The above are only a sample of scores of similar passages which might be sighted.

Peter Ruckman is quoted as saying: “The King James Bible is God guided and God breathed—in a sense in which I can claim it to be scripture” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, June, 1984, p. 4).

Have I told you that I don't care what Peter Ruckman ever said?

"What is predicted of the Scriptures themselves, demonstrates that they are entirely and absolutely the Word of God.

“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” (Ps. 19:7)—this altogether excludes any place in the Bible for human infirmities and imperfections. “Thy Word is very pure” (Ps. 119:140), which cannot mean less than that the Holy Spirit so superintended the composition of the Bible and so “moved” its writers that all error has been excluded. “Thy Word is true from the beginning” (Ps. 119:160)—how this anticipated the assaults of the higher critics on the Book of Genesis, particularly on its opening chapters!

"The teaching of the New Testament agrees with what we have quoted from the Old. “Take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say” (Luke 12:11–12),—the disciples were the ones who spake, but it was the Holy Spirit who “taught them what to say.”

"Could any language express more emphatically the most entire inspiration? and, if the Holy Spirit so controlled their utterances when in the presence of “magistrates,” is it conceivable that He would do less for them when they were communicating the mind of God to all future generations on things touching our eternal destiny? Assuredly not. “But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled” (Acts 3:18).

"Here the Holy Spirit declares thro’ Peter that it was God who had revealed by the mouth of all His prophets that Israel’s Messiah must suffer before the glory should appear. “But that I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” (Acts 24:14).

"These words clearly evidence the fact that the Apostle Paul had the utmost confidence in the authenticity of the entire contents of the Old Testament. “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (I Cor. 2:4). Could any man have used such language as this unless he had been fully conscious that he was speaking the very words of God? “The prophecy came not at any time by the will of man: but Holy men of God Spake as they were Moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21)." A. W. Pink: Divine Inspiration of the Bible - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

In his article entitled “Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?”, Herb Evans claimed: “God breathed the breath of life into the Scripture, never to be breathed into again.

Nothing could possibly be more explicit.

The Breath of God is on His Words that came out of His Mouth in Eternity Past and His Words can never be separated from God's Anointing and Inspiration Giving them Supernaturally Inspired Unction since that 'Time', until Eternity Future. God's Words, in whatever Language are Inspired as to their Nature of having a Divine Author as their Inspirer.

The Activity in Translation is nothing more than a Neutral Medium of Exchange.

"Dr. Gray has strikingly and forcefully stated the necessity of a verbally inspired Bible in the following language:—“An illustration the writer has often used will help to make this clear. A stenographer in a mercantile house was asked by his employer to write as follows:

“Gentlemen: we misunderstood your letter and will now fill your order.”

"Imagine the employer’s surprise, however, when a little later this was set before him for his signature:
“Gentlemen: we misunderstood your letter and will not fill your order.”

"The mistake was only of a single letter, but it was entirely subversive of his meaning. And yet the thought was given clearly to the stenographer, and the words, too, for that matter, Moreover, the latter was capable and faithful, but he was human, and it is human to err. Had not his employer controlled his expression, down to the very letter, the thought intended to be conveyed would have failed of utterance.”

"So, too, the Holy Spirit had to superintend the writing of the very letter of Scripture in order to guarantee its accuracy and inerrancy." A. W. Pink: Divine Inspiration of the Bible - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The Bible that we have today (A.V. 1611) is alive! Inspired! It still has God’s Breath in it and will never ever expire” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin, March, 1981, pp. 3, 8).

"The most convincing of all the proofs and arguments for the Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures is the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ regarded them and treated them as such. He Himself submitted to their Authority.

"When assaulted by Satan, three times He replied, “It is written,” and it is particularly to be noted that the point of each of His quotations and the force of each reply lay in a single word—“Man shall not live by bread alone” etc.;

Then, the Lord says, "but by every Word that Proceeds Out of the Mouth of God", WITH HIS BREATH.

“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God;” “Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God,
and Him only shalt thou serve.”

"When tempted by the Pharisees, who asked Him,
“Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

He answered, “Have ye not read?” etc. (Matt. 19:4–5).

"To the Sadducees He said, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29).

"On another occasion He accused the Pharisees of “Making the Word of God of none effect thro’ their tradition” (Mark 7:13).

"On another occasion, when speaking of the Word of God, He declared “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

"Sufficient has been adduced to show that the Lord Jesus regarded the Scriptures as the Word of God in the most Absolute sense. In view of this fact let Christians beware of detracting in the smallest degree from the perfect and full Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures."

Preservation of the Inspiration is simply a matter of The Divinely Inspired Revelation of God's Words to Mankind in the Original Autographs being PROVIDENCIALLY Preserved in spite of any Language Exchange.

A. W. Pink: Divine Inspiration of the Bible - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

William Grady asserted: “If God’s breath rested on the very originals He intended to preserve, wouldn’t common sense dictate that the final ancestor would also have to retain inspiration?” (Final Authority, p. 22).

Yes, the properly Translated Productions taken from the copies of the very Original Language Manuscripts, upon which God's Breath obviously "Rested" Directly, do Retain Inspiration to the Degree that THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE WORD OF GOD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN'T DO (apart from the Word lying or the Holy Spirit denying Himself).

Unless, by "would also have to retain inspiration?” is meant to mean the double-inspiration fallacy, by him, or you, or anyone else. God's Words are Inspired and nothing is about to alter that Statement of Historical Fact.

The Bible Translators didn't have to be anything having to do with the Inspiration which the Eternal Words Contain before and after they are Translated, no different than having God's copies in the Original Source Language placed into a Translation Program and pushing the button on the word 'agape' and have it give you the word 'love'.

'Agape' is Inspired and 'love' is Inspired.

WHAT IS IT THE WORD OF GOD IN ITS PRESENT TRANSLATED CONDITION CAN NOT DO WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT BEARING WITNESS WITH EVERY WORD IN THEM THAT IT SAYS ARE GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD????

If the Words have been Preserved, they are Inspired by the Divine Author and Inspirer, then the Inspiration has been Preserved in His Words, because they can not be otherwise.

Chapter Nine;​

The Miraculous Power of the Bible Shows Forth That its Inspirer Is the Almighty.​

I. The Power of God’s Word to Convict Men of Sin.

II. The Power of God’s Word to Deliver Men From Sin.​

III. The Power of God’s Word Over the Human Affections.​

 

[Logos1560]

all for a paycheck probably.

How much are you selling out the King James for?

There is not probably at all for your unsupported, bogus false accusation that would bear false witness.

I do not work for, and I do not get paid by any Bible publisher as you improperly try to imply or suggest. You have implied this bogus completely-false accusation several times.

My first book I found a printer and had a large number of copies printed so thus I paid for the printing for all of them. The rest of my books are printed by an on-demand publisher so that the printing is paid for whenever a copy of a book is ordered. The cost of my books on Amazon is based on the charges or costs made that on-demand publisher/printer (including charges for the shipping) and those charged by Amazon for their percentage of any sales. While it is actually none of your business, I have priced my books almost as low as their price calculator allows so that I may receive 5 cents to 20 cents on my books and definitely less than one dollar per book. My effort is to set my price near either the dollar amount and 99 cents or the dollar amount and 49 cents so the small amount that I will later receive varies from book to book. The prices sometimes change because the on-demand publisher increases their cost for the printing or else I make available an updated expanded edition that includes more pages for which the publisher charges more. The costs of individual books printed by on-demand publishers are much higher than the costs for each book where thousands of copies are printed at one time.

My effort is to present the truth concerning the KJV, my preferred English Bible translation. As a believer, I have read and studied the KJV over 60 years. My effort is to be as accurate as possible in my writings. I am not selling out the KJV as you falsely allege. I am defending the KJV as what it actually is. Your personal attacks are wrong.

My efforts in my research and writings are in agreement with the doctrine of truth taught in the KJV.

Your misleading and bogus false accusations are contrary to the doctrine of truth taught in the KJV and to a clear command of God.

 

[Logos1560]

Did they say that? Really?

Where?

You removed the name of the person who stated the quotation as you seem to try to blame me for what Peter Ruckman stated.

In the March, 2009, issue of his publication Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Peter Ruckman wrote: “So instead of claiming ‘inspiration’ for what they wrote, the King James translators said that what they WROTE (‘scripture’) was ‘GIVEN’ to them ‘BY INSPIRATION’; i.e., God BREATHED on the Scriptures they produced and gave them life (Heb. 4:12)“ (p. 17).

In his note at Job 32:8, Peter Ruckman wrote: “When we say the KJV is ‘the holy scriptures’ in English (Rom. 1:2), or ‘given by inspiration’ (2 Tim. 3:16), we mean that the Holy Spirit of God guided its translators in their work and then breathed on that Book when they got through with it” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 759).

Peter Ruckman is claiming that the KJV translators said that in 2 Timothy 3:16 according to his claimed definition of the term Scripture. Peter Ruckman claims to get his definition of the term Scripture [which also seems to be your definition] from 2 Timothy 3:16 although he may have gotten his definition from Herb Evans.

 

[th1bill]

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.m te

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.

Some folks calling the name od our LORD are in danger of hear Him tell them He never knew them because their "belief" is not born by their spiritual heart and they, therefore serve a god that is not all powerful. Because they serve this god their god cannot inspire the translators. My God, my Elohime, is limitless and nothing is beyond Him. Like you, my Bible, the Hallelujah Scriptures, is inspired by YHWH and Yashua. It is therefore translated with the inspiration of God.

There exist translations such as The New World Translation. There are intentionally warped in translation to comply with lying spirit inspired books such as the Book of Mormon but they tend to stand alone and are easily discerned as false when compared.

Shalom

 

[Armchair Apologist]

There exist translations such as The New World Translation. There are intentionally warped in translation to comply with lying spirit inspired books such as the Book of Mormon but they tend to stand alone and are easily discerned as false when compared.

If someone were to read a NWT in all of its perverted glory, would it or would it not be able to make one wise unto salvation?

The Book of Mormon is filled with passages that have been plagiarized, lifted right out of the scriptures which are, in fact inspired. Could God use such passages to reveal the truth of himself to one who read the Book of Mormon?

Not trying to argue here, just thinking aloud.