Inspiration, Canonicity, KJV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dachaser said:
Good Translations today would be infallible, but none of them would be inspired, as that brings in the bad KJVO position.
Click to expand...

Jerusalem Blade said:
Would you kindly explain what you mean by that? I continue to note that you do not reference Scripture in your arguments, but simply your own views.
Click to expand...

Moderator Note:
Yes, as has already been pointed out by another mod in this thread, let's have less assertion and more substantive commentary that can be used to examine the veracity of these assertions. PB is not a chat-box. It is a long discussion format environment. Persons that continue to just opine time and again in threads such as this are going to find themselves removed from participation in the thread for a time...or longer.
squint.gif
 
R. Reymond:

But something should be said about the nature of these translations or versions. Are they to be regarded as the word of God? Are they authoritative? Are they inspired? We should not hesitate to affirm that to the degree, translations and versions capture the authorial intention of the autographs , to that same degree these translations are the word of God and are therefore authoritative. Theirs, of course, a derived authority , while the authority of the autographs is an intrinsic, immediate and inherent authority. While one may refer to translations and versions as 'inspired' scripture in a sense that they are copies of the inspired autographs, only the autographs were directly inspired and thus, inerrant.

Directly vs indirectly
Mediate vs immediate
 
John Owen:

The word duly and legitimately interpreted is still the word of God, and so the exposition (if it departs not from the analogy of faith) is also the word of God, so far as it is founded on and expands upon the written word. All correct exposition may thus be said to share in infallibility, so far as it expounds the infallible word.

Biblical Theology pg 816
 
OPC'n said:
I guess I don't understand what you believe in then. Do you believe that the original manuscripts were lost before copies could be made and later translated?
Click to expand...
I believe that we no longer have any of the originals, and that our Greek and Hebrew texts in use are reconstructed ones that are so close to the originals that God preserved them to us for use.
 
Scott Bushey said:
R. Reymond:

But something should be said about the nature of these translations or versions. Are they to be regarded as the word of God? Are they authoritative? Are they inspired? We should not hesitate to affirm that to the degree, translations and versions capture the authorial intention of the autographs , to that same degree these translations are the word of God and are therefore authoritative. Theirs, of course, a derived authority , while the authority of the autographs is an intrinsic, immediate and inherent authority. While one may refer to translations and versions as 'inspired' scripture in a sense that they are copies of the inspired autographs, only the autographs were directly inspired and thus, inerrant.

Directly vs indirectly
Mediate vs immediate
Click to expand...
Modern translations, and others such as the Geneva and the KJV versions, are indeed word of God to us in English and our authority for all doctrines and practices, but none of them were inspired by God.
 
Scott Bushey said:
Joe,
'Useless' in that it has no inspiration. Ultimately, it is no different than any other book men have written. No one is teaching this from the pulpit when they quote from 2 Tim 3; No pastor is telling his members, "The bibles u hold, even though Tim tells us that the word is breathed out, what you hold, is NOT breathed out! It has no inspiration at all!"
I am not of the belief that translations are of no use. I hold that the translations are mediately inspired.
Click to expand...
The translations are the word of God to us, but none of them were or are inspired.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Moderator Note:
Yes, as has already been pointed out by another mod in this thread, let's have less assertion and more substantive commentary that can be used to examine the veracity of these assertions. PB is not a chat-box. It is a long discussion format environment. Persons that continue to just opine time and again in threads such as this are going to find themselves removed from participation in the thread for a time...or longer.
squint.gif
Click to expand...
In regards to the scripture themselves, has it not been though that the official reformed and baptist position been that only the original scriptures were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Jesus equated the inspiration that would come upon His Apostles to be the same very nature as that accorded to the OT prophets, but there is no scriptures that would indicate that it would be forwarded to any following the Apostles of Christ.
 
David,
Is this the word of God?


3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto bspiritual, but as unto ccarnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 3.
 
David,
U do understand that even the Apostle Paul quoted from the Septuagint in our scriptures? Was Pauls citation uninspired?
 
If you say that the 'translations are the word of God', then they would have to be inspired. Think about what you have said and what I responded with here.
 
Scott Bushey said:
If you say that the 'translations are the word of God', then they would have to be inspired. Think about what you have said and what I responded with here.
Click to expand...
They are the word of God as they were translated from original languages source texts, but nothing was inspired directly by God after Apostle John passed away.
 
I've been thinking on this topic and this illustration came to mind. In Matthew 3:17 God the Father, speaking through the cloud says, 17 and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
He is speaking to the Apostles. Was He speaking in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew ? When Matthew, Mark and Luke described this in the koine Greek there is no doubt the translation was inspired in the original autographs.
Since it is the Word of God whether it was spoken by the Father in a language other than koine it is still inspired though translated. The logical conclusion, I think, is that when translators render this in English, or whatever language, it is still inspired, though the translators themselves are not inspired.
Make sense, or I am in error here ?
 
Jimmy,
The only thing I might suggest is that, as Matthew Winzer has cited in many earlier threads on textual criticism, the distinction between immediate inspiration and mediate inspiration must be considered.
 
Scott Bushey said:
In other words, one is (I)nspired and the other, (i)nspired.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification Scott. Yesterday I listened to a couple of sermons by MLJ on 'Authority.' He does not get into a debate on whether the English Bible is 'inspired' probably because it is a foregone conclusion. In the sermon he references 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The inference being that were the text not inspired (in translation) that the Spirit wouldn't be speaking to men through it.
In his intro to 'Studies In The Sermon on the Mount' he says ;
"There is nothing more important in the Christian life than the way in which we approach the Bible and the way in which we read it. It is our textbook, it is our only source, it is our only authority.
We know nothing about God and about the Christian life in a true sense apart from the Bible. We can draw various deductions from nature (and possibly from various mystical experiences) by which we can arrive at a belief in a supreme Creator. But I think it is agreed by most Christians and it has been traditional throughout the long history of the Church that we have no authority save this Book.
We cannot rely solely upon subjective experiences because there are evil spirits as well as good spirits' there are counterfeit experiences. Here, in the Bible is our sole authority."
Click to expand...
1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
If the Word of God doesn't live and abide within our Bibles we are of all men most miserable.
 
Ch 1 of the WCF:

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
 
Hello David,

You said in post 74, "Jude quoted from book of Enoch, and that book was not inspired".

We do not know he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Calvin and Gill are of the opinion that Jude was quoting from a saying preserved in ancient tradition as an authentic saying of Enoch, held in high regard by the Jews of his day. Note Jude does not say, "Enoch wrote...", but "Enoch...prophesied..."

And from Thomas Manton’s commentary, Jude, part of the BOT Geneva Series of Commentaries:

Ver. 14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.

The apostle urgeth another argument to imply the destruction of those seducers, and that is, the prophecy of Enoch. Whether this prophecy were written or not, the same Spirit that spake in Enoch inspired our apostle: if he received it by tradition, it is here made authentic and put into the canon*. The Jews have some relics of this prophecy in their writings, and some talk of a volume, extant in the primitive times, consisting of 4082 lines, called the Prophecy of Enoch; but that was condemned for spurious and apocryphal. Tertullian saith there was a prophecy of Enoch kept by Noah in the ark, which book is now lost. Be it so; many good books are lost, but no scripture. But most probably it was a prophecy that went from hand to hand, from father to son. Jude saith, ‘Enoch prophesied;’ he did not say it is written, as quoting a passage of scripture. But why should he rather produce Enoch’s prophecy, than a passage out of the authentic books of scripture, where there are many such to this purpose? I answer—....It was done by the providence of God, to preserve this memorial to the church....That the doctrine of the day of judgment is ancient, long since foretold.... (pages 289, 290, 291)

Notes
* Vid. Bez. et Estium in loc.​

It is painful sometimes to see your opinions given without study or knowledge.
 
Dachaser said:
The translations are the word of God to us, but none of them were or are inspired.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how something can be the Word of God and not be inspired?

The Protestant understanding is that, insofar as the translations are a faithful representation of the original, they have the quality of being the inspired Word of God. This quality of inspiration is mediated via the process of translation.

Nobody is claiming that the translators themselves were inspired; but they were translating inspired words. Where the translations are accurate, they carry the authoritative quality of the originals.
 
Looking further at your remarks, David; you said in post 68,

In regards to the scripture themselves, has it not been though that the official reformed and baptist position been that only the original scriptures were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Jesus equated the inspiration that would come upon His Apostles to be the same very nature as that accorded to the OT prophets, but there is no scriptures that would indicate that it would be forwarded to any following the Apostles of Christ.​

I gather you are unfamiliar with the Scriptures that posit God's providential preservation of said Scriptures? You did say a true thing, however, when you said, "only the original scriptures were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit".

But your second paragraph is not true, where you opined,

Jesus equated the inspiration that would come upon His Apostles to be the same very nature as that accorded to the OT prophets, but there is no scriptures that would indicate that it would be forwarded to any following the Apostles of Christ.​

What think ye of this Scripture:

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD,
from henceforth and for ever (Isa 59:21).​

Or this saying of Jesus:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Matt 24:35).​

Where would they not pass away? Only in Heaven? Or on earth, where they were given for the sake of men, to know God, and be saved by Him, unto His glory?

Or these Scriptures,

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matt 4:4).

...his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet 1:3).​

Now, David, if we must live by "every word" of God, and the Scripture clearly states that He "hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life", does it then not fall to reason that He would preserve for us that which we must "live by"?

The saying of Jesus, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" is in the Greek, ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσονται οι δε λογοι μου ου μη παρελθωσιν. Now if the English is perfectly faithful—accurate—to the Greek, does not the English hold the same quality of "God-breathedness" as the Greek, although not, as you rightly said, "directly inspired", but rather indirectly (mediately) via the translation process?

I note that you subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which in 1:8 says, in part,

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages...​

According to the framers of your confession, the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence [were] kept pure in all ages", including the Greek and Hebrew mss they had in their age (the first half of the 1600s), which were, the TR mss, and the Masoretic Hebrew of the 2nd Rabbinic Bible. So these original language mss were considered by them, according to your own confessional standard, kept pure as regards their inspiration. And, as I said, if the translation of them into the vernacular languages was faithful (accurate), then insofar as this was so, they partook of the quality of inspiration, not directly, but mediately—indirectly.

Is this not sound exposition and doctrine?
 
Last edited:
TylerRay said:
Can you explain how something can be the Word of God and not be inspired?

The Protestant understanding is that, insofar as the translations are a faithful representation of the original, they have the quality of being the inspired Word of God. This quality of inspiration is mediated via the process of translation.

Nobody is claiming that the translators themselves were inspired; but they were translating inspired words. Where the translations are accurate, they carry the authoritative quality of the originals.
Click to expand...
Only the Originals themselves though had divine inspiration. There are no copies that exist from them directly unto us.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
Looking further at your remarks, David; you said in post 68,

In regards to the scripture themselves, has it not been though that the official reformed and baptist position been that only the original scriptures were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Jesus equated the inspiration that would come upon His Apostles to be the same very nature as that accorded to the OT prophets, but there is no scriptures that would indicate that it would be forwarded to any following the Apostles of Christ.​

I gather you are unfamiliar with the Scriptures that posit God's providential preservation of said Scriptures? You did say a true thing, however, when you said, "only the original scriptures were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit".

But your second paragraph is not true, where you opined,

Jesus equated the inspiration that would come upon His Apostles to be the same very nature as that accorded to the OT prophets, but there is no scriptures that would indicate that it would be forwarded to any following the Apostles of Christ.​

What think ye of this Scripture:

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD,
from henceforth and for ever (Isa 59:21).​

Or this saying of Jesus:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Matt 24:35).​

Where would they not pass away? Only in Heaven? Or on earth, where they were given for the sake of men, to know God, and be saved by Him, unto His glory?

Or these Scriptures,

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matt 4:4).

...his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet 1:3).​

Now, David, if we must live by "every word" of God, and the Scripture clearly states that He "hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life", does it then not fall to reason that He would preserve for us that which we must "live by"?

The saying of Jesus, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" is in the Greek, ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσονται οι δε λογοι μου ου μη παρελθωσιν. Now if the English is perfectly faithful—accurate—to the Greek, does not the English hold the same quality of "God-breathedness" as the Greek, although not, as you rightly said, "directly inspired", but rather indirectly (mediately) via the translation process?

I note that you subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which in 1:8 says, in part,

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages...​

According to the framers of your confession, the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence [were] kept pure in all ages", including the Greek and Hebrew mss they had in their age (the first half of the 1600s), which were, the TR mss, and the Masoretic Hebrew of the 2nd Rabbinic Bible. So these original language mss were considered by them, according to your own confessional standard, kept pure as regards their inspiration. And, as I said, if the translation of them into the vernacular languages was faithful (accurate), then insofar as this was so, they partook of the quality of inspiration, not directly, but mediately—indirectly.

Is this not sound exposition and doctrine?
Click to expand...
God preserved the originals to us through the various manuscripts and documents, as he made sure that we could reconstruct them to us in the various Greek and hebrew source texts in use, such as CT/MT/TR et all. No translation is perfect, as there are no 100 % accurate copy of the originals, but the errors and mistakes do not hinder us able to seethe English translations as being infallible, and our authority for all doctrines and practices. The TR is not perfect, nor is any other Greek text source used to translate off from, but they would be infallible witnesses to those inerrant originals.
 
Dachaser said:
Only the Originals themselves though had divine inspiration. There are no copies that exist from them directly unto us.
Click to expand...
So you don't believe we have the inspired Word at all? I'd advise you to reexamine that. That's not the Protestant doctrine of the Word. Read Steve's post on God's providential preservation of the Scriptures. That's the doctrine of all the Calvinistic confessions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Limited Inspiration
Replies
8
Views
5K
reformedmedia
R
M
  • Locked
Bruce Metzger and inspiration
Replies
5
Views
2K
Ask Mr. Religion
Ask Mr. Religion
I
  • Locked
KJV only
2
Replies
55
Views
14K
PointyHaired Calvinist
PointyHaired Calvinist
A
  • Locked
KJV
Replies
18
Views
2K
Dachaser
D
Tyrese
  • Locked
KJV
Replies
16
Views
3K
reaganmarsh
reaganmarsh
Back
Top