Where is the Bible?

[rbell]

Please cite which posts malign the KJV. It's my observation that KJVOists often malign translations other than the KJV, but then accuse others of maligning the KJV.

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

[annsni]

If I posted.............. " I also find it extremely useful for speaking to other people online in discussion and debate because it's kind of the base Bible for many. It's the one to go back to because no one argues with what the NIV says. Unfortunate but true."...........I'd bet that would be considered maligning the NIV, yet when that is posted about the KJV, it's OK.

ROTFL - I absolutely didn't malign the KJV at all. The "unfortunate" is that people who are KJVO malign the other versions. That's all I said. I use the KJV often although it's not my Bible of choice for daily use. What you posted above is not even maligning the NIV. Sorry.

 

[DHK]

I think you may be reading a bit more into this particular verse than is actually there. Notice that the verse explicitly states that God's holy men were moved to 'speak' (as opposed to 'write'). The Greek word is a form of laleo (Strong's #2980) meaning to utter by voice or emit sound. Remember, some true prophets spoke God's prophecies but were themselves not writers (Jesus, for example). Therefore, this verse only specifically teaches that all true prophets were moved by the Spirit to speak. There will be prophets in the future (see Revelation).

Of course, verse 21 follows a verse where we find "prophecy" linked directly with the word "Scripture". It is in verse 20 that we find the confirmation that any prophet's words recorded in Scripture originated in the mind of God. This particular verse does not even imply that God specifically motivated men to record these divine messages, just that the written teachings are purely His. There are verses that record God commanding a prophet (Moses, for example) to write His words. But because Jesus and NT writers refer elsewhere to the the text of their own day as " the Scriptures" I don't think we should say that this verse applies exclusively to the autographs. If we believe the canon is closed, not even true prophetic words in the future will be added to our Scripture.

Take the context of the entire passage and see what it is teaching. To stir the KJVO pot, I will quote from Darby's translation which puts a different light on some of these verses.

2 Peter 1:18-21 and this voice *we* heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain.
19 And we have the prophetic word made surer, to which ye do well taking heed (as to a lamp shining in an obscure place) until the day dawn and the morning star arise in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that the scope of no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
21 for prophecy was not ever uttered by the will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit.

Note the context from verse 18 and the preceding verses. Peter describes one of the greatest, most magnificent, awesome experiences that any man could ever experience. What could be any greater than seeing Jesus in a temporary glorified body along with Elijah and Moses, standing right there in front of him! No experience could ever top that! And what's more the experience was so unique, so elevated, so supernatural, that when it was over Jesus told them (Peter, James and John), not to tell anyone. Why? People would think that they were crazy; they would never believe them.

Now after describing that glorious revelation, he tells his reader this:
"But we have a "more sure word of prophecy" (KJV), or as it is in Darby's translation: "we have the prophetic word made surer."

What is he saying? Even greater than the greatest experience one may have is the Word of God. The canon of Scripture is of greater authority than experience, no matter how great that experience is, and that is why he referred to his own experience. We have the prophetic word made surer (even than my experience). Remember that in chapter three of this same epistle he refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture. There were a lot of other books already written by the time of the writing of this book that were considered Scripture.

He is speaking of the written word. Look again what he says:
2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that the scope of no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
--Even if this "prophecy of Scripture" is taken to refer to the OT only it definitely refers to the written word. It refers to Scripture. That is the context. Throughout this passage Peter is referring to Scripture which some have declared to have "their own particular interpretation." That particular phrase would have no sense if it were referring to prophets like Nathan, whose words were not written down for us to interpret. It refers to the canon of Scripture.

Thus the "holy men of God 'speaking' under the power of the Holy Spirit refers to those men who wrote the canon. The word speak is a red herring at this point. Almost all of the prophets (and by extension the apostles) had amanuenses--those who would write that which was communicated by God to the prophet or apostle. Jeremiah had Baruch. Paul had various helpers. Very few wrote by their own hand.

Even so the word spoke is used in a unique way.
It is like the verse: Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
If that is true, then you should never read your Bible, study your Bible, etc. Faith only comes by hearing. No other way of taking in the word of God is acceptable. Is this your interpretation?

The word "spoke" is used in a similar way. They spoke, uttered, etc. But that doesn't limit them to using only their mouth. Many "dumb" people speak with pen and paper. Zacharias, the husband of Elizabeth, spoke when he wrote "he shall be called John."

Nevertheless the context still refers to the canon of Scripture.

 

[sag38]

Many times I have seen others take and use the same arguments that KJVO's use to support thier postion against them. The same methods used to expose errors in the NIV should also equally apply to any other version to include the KJV. But, B4Life and others some how conclude that is maligning the KJV when it isn't. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Take the context of the entire passage ...

We can agree then that it is not verse 21 alone that we come to understanding of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. You had only displayed verse 21 by itself. I don't think verse 21 alone is relevent to autographs.

Peter supports his statement that the "prophecy of Scripture" (written revelation) is solely from the mind of God with this broader proof: that every spoken (true) prophecy whether recorded or not comes through the Holy Spirit (and not out of the imaginations of men). We know this to be the case because Scripture records instances where God commanded that some sayings be written. Consequently, any of those teachings that are recorded must be inspired also. So verse 21 is only about spoken prophecy; in verse 20 any written ones are naturally included by extension. By Peter's use in his argument (context), I cannot agree that "spoken" means 'written' in verse 21. It is pretty clear in the Greek that "spoke" means to utter with the voice.

I normally like Darby's translation but I think his rendering of verse 20 is misleading. I gotta go; maybe more on this later.

 

[Harold Garvey]

I am not talking about "meaning" Harold, I am talking about "translation." There is a difference. Does it make a difference to you if the Bible is translated accurately by the translator, or just if they put something that means approximately the same as what Paul or any of the other apostles actually wrote. Is it right to tamper with the actual words of God? Sure the meaning comes across as you would understand it. But as I said: neither "God," nor "forbid" are in the Greek MSS. They aren't there. If they aren't there what right does a translator have in putting them there? That is a mistake on the part of the translator.

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Romans 6:2 Far be the thought. We who have died to sin, how shall we still live in it? (Darby)

Romans 6:2 May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer? (WEB)

See the differences between the three translations. Darby's and the World's English Bible have translated it more accurately, more literally. The most literal is in the WEB. The KJV has failed in this particular translation.

mh genoito oitineV

That is as good as a copy and paste of the Greek text will get in my computer programs. But there is no God there. And there is no forbid there. Believe me. The other translations are far more accurate.

Oh, yeah, give me something called the Bible, tell me it's not inspired because it cannot mean what it says because the worfds don;t fit exactly my liking.

God forbid means may it never be. it places the emphasis on the One who is forbidding the act. not leaving it up to an objective to say "mother may, I?":tonofbricks:

 

[Harold Garvey]

The very word "inspired" means "God-breathed"...

Funny you should say that in reference to the Bible I bought.. (Which happens to be a KJV.)

Still waiting for that scripture.

 

[Harold Garvey]

What exactly did you mean? You don't accept the truth as 1Pet.1:21 teaches: that only "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," refers to the OT prophets, and by extension the NT apostles. You believe that Peter is referring to the KJV translators as well, an impossible interpretation.

show me where the Bible says "only"

If the KJV is inspired which is only a translation, then my translation is inspired as well, as can any translation. That is the only logical conclusion.
But remember that the Greek term "inspiration" means "God breathed." This is not man's teaching. This is what a Greek-speaking person would tell you. That is the meaning of the word.

So when did you make God stop breathing?


His word is inspired. Translation doesn't take away the breath of God, only mistranslation does.:type:

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

inspiration: the Greek is "qeopneustoV theopneustos theh-op'-nyoo-stos

theopneustos. Theo from theos means God.
Pneustos from pneuma means breath or spirit.
Thus the word means "God-breathed."
Or as Strong's puts it: " divinely breathed in:--given by
inspiration of God."

The only time that God "divinely breathed in" is when he breathed into his disciples the very words that he wanted them to put on paper. He did not do this with copyists or translators. He breathed into the disciples the words that he wanted put on paper.
And those words have been preserved for us.
Preservation is different than inspiration.

Why is it you think God is holding His breath?

The Word of God interprets itself. We were speaking about translation, and the accuracy thereof. If I am accurate in translation, and every translation is inspired, then according to you I am just as inspired as Paul. But we know that is not the truth, because only the Prophets and Apostles were inspired.

Only problem you'd have is neither is scripture of any private interpretation by you or Paul.:type:

 

[Harold Garvey]

You are correct in saying "it is the writings that are inspired." The original manuscripts are the only manuscripts that are inspired; no copies, no translations, nothing else but the originals. There was no secondary or subsequent inspiration.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Clearly God used men of God to pen inspired writings. The holy men of were not KJV translators. They were prophets and apostles that the Holy Spirit used.

Luke wrote in Greek when he translated Paul's words. The NT was written in Greek. So, what is your problem in Acts 22. Luke is the author.

Look at this passage:

Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Is this the inspired Word of God? Are they God's words? Did God say this? How do you account for this?
Inspired does not mean that God spoke it. It means that it is recorded exactly as God wanted it recorded whether or not it was originally spoken in another language or not. BTW, what language did the serpent originally speak in? We don't know. But Moses recorded the words of that revelation in Hebrew.

And Luke recorded the events of the life of Paul in Greek. And that is what is important. The MSS that are inspired are written in Greek. (In the NT)

You have the burden of proof that the very translation you quote that tells us the word of God is inspired isn't inspired.

Scripture, please.

 

[DHK]

You have the burden of proof that the very translation you quote that tells us the word of God is inspired isn't inspired.

Scripture, please.

That is right, because no translation is inspired; only the originals are. I have given you plenty of Scripture. You haven't given me any for your position. Who was the first one to use the KJV? The Apostle Paul, perhaps?

 

[DHK]

show me where the Bible says "only"

Why would I add to the Word of God? Do you know the warnings about adding to the Word of God?

So when did you make God stop breathing?

The same word is used of Adam.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and "breathed into" his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
--When did God stop breathing into Adam?
Your question is foolish.
God breathed once into the Apostles as they wrote the books that they were writing and caused them to write the very words that he wanted them to pen. From that time onward we have copies of those words. God promised to preserve those words. We have the preserved Word of God. Only the originals are inspired--God breathed.

His word is inspired. Translation doesn't take away the breath of God, only mistranslation does.:type:
Why is it you think God is holding His breath?

Why do you think this? Who gave you this idea? This is utter foolishness and has nothing to do with either preservation or inspiration.

Only problem you'd have is neither is scripture of any private interpretation by you or Paul.:type:

I didn't say that Scripture was of private interpretation, now, did I?
The Scripture we have today is the preserved Word of God.
The words that the Apostles and Prophets penned by the Holy Spirit of God, they were the words that were inspired. We don't have them any more.

 

[DHK]

Oh, yeah, give me something called the Bible, tell me it's not inspired because it cannot mean what it says because the worfds don;t fit exactly my liking.

God forbid means may it never be. it places the emphasis on the One who is forbidding the act. not leaving it up to an objective to say "mother may, I?":tonofbricks:

If it means that, then why didn't the KJV translators put that into writing instead of writing "God forbid" as they mistakenly did. They should translate what the words mean, so we don't have to re-translate as you just did.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... He is speaking of the written word. Look again what he says:
2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that the scope of no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
--Even if this "prophecy of Scripture" is taken to refer to the OT only it definitely refers to the written word. It refers to Scripture. That is the context. Throughout this passage Peter is referring to Scripture which some have declared to have "their own particular interpretation." That particular phrase would have no sense if it were referring to prophets like Nathan, whose words were not written down for us to interpret. It refers to the canon of Scripture. ...

No question, verse 20 is about Scripture; graphe (Strong's #1124) is the common term used by apostolic writers to refer to the Hebrew holy writ. But I think you know better: this verse is NOT saying that prophecy (of the Scripture) should not be interpreted by individual humans, but rather it is saying that prophecy (of the Scripture) was not invented by human individuals. So when the verse is understood correctly, what makes sense for written prophecy is equally true of spoken prophecy. It is primarily about "prophecy" (inspired teaching); the words "of the Scripture" specify the type of prophecy in verse 20.

I am not trying to be hyper-literal, but the word "spoke" is not a 'red herring'. In the 296 occurrences of the Greek word laleo I did find not any instances where it could be construed as indicating written communication. The KJV renders the word as "speak" (244 times), "say", "talk", "tell", "preach" and "utter". I am being conservative.

[BTW -- I am familiar with amanuenses, and they have no affect on authorship. I am also familiar with Romans 10:17, and "faith cometh by hearing" has no affect on reading or studying the Bible. Additionally, I would say that this "faith" is saving faith from hearing the Gospel ("word of God") not the living out of Christian faith; this is the common misunderstanding of the use of the word "faith" by Paul and James.]

I invite anyone to comment on the above post and my post #129 (restated in #145). If I'm wrong please show me.

 

[DHK]

No question, verse 20 is about Scripture; graphe (Strong's #1124) is the common term used by apostolic writers to refer to the Hebrew holy writ. But I think you know better: this verse is NOT saying that prophecy (of the Scripture) should not be interpreted by individual humans, but rather it is saying that prophecy (of the Scripture) was not invented by human individuals. So when the verse is understood correctly, what makes sense for written prophecy is equally true of spoken prophecy. It is primarily about "prophecy" (inspired teaching); the words "of the Scripture" specify the type of prophecy in verse 20.

I like the KJV rendering here: "is of no private interpretation." The meaning does not apply to individuals else it would negate private study. It is applicable to organizations, like the RCC which has its own private interpretation and allows no freedom for any of its followers to disagree with them. They force their interpretation on all of its members. That is what is meant by "private interpretation." There is no soul liberty. Every cult leader does the same thing. They have their own private interpretation and force it upon their followers. That negates the command to: "Study to show yourselves approved unto God..."

I am not trying to be hyper-literal, but the word "spoke" is not a 'red herring'. In the 296 occurrences of the Greek word laleo I did find not any instances where it could be construed as indicating written communication. The KJV renders the word as "speak" (244 times), "say", "talk", "tell", "preach" and "utter". I am being conservative.

Yes, I believe that is a bit "hyper-literal," as the Word had to be "spoken" whether by the Spirit to the heart, or to another, before it was written down.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I like the KJV rendering here: "is of no private interpretation." The meaning does not apply to individuals else it would negate private study. It is applicable to organizations, like the RCC which has its own private interpretation and allows no freedom for any of its followers to disagree with them. They force their interpretation on all of its members. That is what is meant by "private interpretation." There is no soul liberty. Every cult leader does the same thing. They have their own private interpretation and force it upon their followers. That negates the command to: "Study to show yourselves approved unto God..."

It seems that you understand 2 Peter 1:20 to prohibit "private interpretation" as an institutional (official) exegetical position. This is an unusual position, since it is not really "private". The Greek word is idios (Strong's #2398) which means pertaining or belonging to one's self; I don't find any instances of the word that apply to institutional (rather than personal) ownership.

I understand "private interpretation" (KJV) to mean out of the prophetic writer's own imagination; this position about the origination of Scripture is rendered more clearly in some translations (just 3 quick examples) --

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets themselves (NLT)

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. (NIV)

Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination (NET)​

I believe that the ambiguity in the KJV translation (and some other versions) contributes often to this misunderstanding (of the RCC, for example). We will not likely come to perfect agreement on this subject with two different opinions of what this verse teaches. Interestingly, you also seem to misinterpret the archaic meaning of "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15.

Yes, I believe that is a bit "hyper-literal," as the Word had to be "spoken" whether by the Spirit to the heart, or to another, before it was written down.

2 Peter 1:21 does not even imply that the words are 'spoken' by the Holy Spirit; however, it does explicitly state that the prophets "spake". Can you show a verse where "speak" or similar term clearly indicates (perhaps exclusively) the act of writing?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Since this read has changed topic completely I am going to close it and ask the members who are discussing the 2 Peter passage to start a discussion on another thread.