Inspiration of Scriptures

[Donmech]

I didn't ask you for dictionary definitions. The context is different Bibles in English. The words, "translation" and "version" are used interchangeably in this context. It is certainly not "wrong" to use either in this context, unless you are discussing different "versions" of a single "translation" such as the 1769 Blaney vs the 1611 original KJV. In that context, I would suggest that the word, "edition" is the more appropriate term.

You assumes that the words have a particular meaning to everyone, therefore Meaning Does Not Depend Upon the Context rather, Meaning Depends Upon the Definition and Meaning also Depends Upon Truth, however, your interpolation or my interpolation might possibly direct our understanding of the words.

[QUOTE=Donmech;3407414]LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him."

The "CHILD'S FATHER"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtil, "perversion" of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.

Was Joseph the father of Jesus in the sense that he was the male head of the household in which Jesus grew up? Yes, of course. The word in the Greek is pater which is "father". "The child's father" is an accurate translation. There is no perversion of the text here.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven. (Matt. 23:9)



This comment is logically invalid. Neither the NASB nor the RSV are "newer editions" of the KJV; both are fresh translations from the Greek, so the charge that either "changed" any word is utterly without merit. Further, the KJV is not the objective standard by which all others must be judged. It is merely an earlier translation, and is itself different from still-earlier translations such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, etc.
If I had to choose a standard, I could not do better than the KJV.




Again, this claim is only valid if the Greek has "theos" in the verse. It doesn't. It has "os" (he). "He" is a perfectly valid translation, and the rules of English grammar together with the preceding context make it quite readily understandable that Jesus is the subject of the sentence.




The NIV does no such thing. The deity of Jesus Christ is readily discerned from the NIV; I personally became convinced of the deity of Jesus by reading the NIV. Yours is unsound thinking and has been refuted many times.



Perhaps you prefer not to use language tools, but you do seem to need the research of others. Next time, provide reference citations for the material you present, lest you be accused of plagiarism.
You are correct in assuming I utilize various research from the internet, just as most others do, however, I must apologize for not sighting my sources as the editing time had run out before I realized my error. See sightings below.
How Bible Versions Affect Doctrine
That Attack on the Bible
Doctrinal Issues In The New Bible Versions





You sound like you've been reading too much Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman. Neither has any credibility around here, so save your pixels.

I am somewhat familiar with these names, however, I have not read them exhaustively and I am not aware of this sites criticizing of various authors.

Overall, you are guilty of bringing your theology to the text and rejecting translations that don't match your theology in every verse. Generally, that's a bad idea. [/QUOTE]

I do reject perverted versions of the bible, and I do believe that my theology is a result of a God preserved KJ bible.

 

[Donmech]

The differences you cite arise from differences between the Nestle/Aland & Wescort Hort Greek texts and the Textus receptus and & Majority texts. I prefer the

Textus Receptus and Majority texts but I believe that translations from the Wescott or the Nestle can serve God's purpose sufficiently.

Things that are different are not the same. The spiritual condition of men who have corrupted the scriptures must be scrutinized before accepting or believing that God's purpose could be served sufficiently. Please review the web-site presented below concerning Westcott & Hort.
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

 

[Willie-T]

It is utterly impossible to read the various descriptions of the same event in the different Gospels and conclude that "inspiration" is, verbatim dictating.

Likewise, "inspired" paintings of Jesus and other Bible characters and scenes are clearly very divergent.

So, I think we can easily dismiss the idea that any Scripture was given to the writer as a precise illustration.

 

[Dino246]

... If I had to choose a standard, I could not do better than the KJV.

Your choice of a standard is irrelevant. Your use of the KJV as the standard is illogical.

...

You are correct in assuming I utilize various research from the internet, just as most others do, however, I must apologize for not sighting my sources as the editing time had run out before I realized my error. See sightings below.
How Bible Versions Affect Doctrine
That Attack on the Bible
Doctrinal Issues In The New Bible Versions

Citations, not sightings. Citing someone's work properly includes giving a reference. If I cite John Piper, I am quoting or paraphrasing him, recognizing that the words or ideas or his, not originally my own.

Any "documentation" which compares modern versions to the KJV is only useful for pointing out differences, not "changes". I do not automatically assume that the KJV is correct (as you seem to).

I do reject perverted versions of the bible, and I do believe that my theology is a result of a God preserved KJ bible.

Your assertion that certain versions of the Bible are "perverted" is fine for you but without merit to me unless you have given sound reasons for it. You haven't yet. Stating it doesn't make it so.

Things that are different are not the same. The spiritual condition of men who have corrupted the scriptures must be scrutinized before accepting or believing that God's purpose could be served sufficiently. Please review the web-site presented below concerning Westcott & Hort.
https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

A selection of quotations from letters, without context, selected by someone critical of Westcott and Hort, can hardly be considered a sound presentation of their "spiritual condition".

I encourage you to obtain and read The King James Only Controversy (2nd edn.) by James White.

 

[Joseppi]

So, now try to apply "every word is perfect" view. Because I see two different records about the same event.

Which is precisely what God required.

Surely it's not news that both Old and New Testaments are full of legal testimonies.

When dealing with legal testimony given by witnesses of historical events it is identical quotes that indicate illegal tampering by means of copying quotes of other witnesses as one's own testimony. (simple quotes being possibly identical)

 

[Joseppi]

How is it, that "ALL SCRIPTURE" referred to in 2 Timothy 3:16 did NOT APPLY to ALL 80 books of the 1611 King James bible...?

Because the title page informs the readers that the Holy Bible, contains both the Old and New Testaments.

The title page doesn't include the Appocrypha in the Holy Bible.

The Appocrypha was sandwiched in between the two testaments of which the Holy Bible consists.

The Appocrypha was removed because readers discerned it wasn't of God and thus is completely useless.

 

[Joseppi]

And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. KJV

There is absolutely NOTHING in the text to suggest they were not born in the same year.

If they were begotten in the same year it would read,
Noah was 500 years old when he begot Shem, Ham and Japeth..

 

[MessageOfTheCross]

Haldeman said of this man: "The life of Moses presents a series of striking antithesis. For instance, he was the child of a slave, and the son of a queen. He was born in a hut, and lived in a palace. He inherited poverty, and enjoyed unlimited wealth. He was the leader of armies, and the keeper of flocks. He was the mightiest of warriors, and the meekest of men. He was educated in the court of Egypt, and yet dwelt in the desert. He had the wisdom of Egypt, and the faith of a child. He was fitted for the city, and wandered in the wilderness. He was tempted with the pleasures of sin, and endured the hardships of virtue. He was backward in speech, and yet talked with God. He had the rod of a shepherd, and the power of the Infinite. He was a fugitive from Pharaoh, and an ambassador from heaven. He was the giver of the Law, and the forerunner of Grace.

"He died alone on Mount Moab, and appeared with Christ in Judea. No man assisted at his funeral, yet God buried him."

JSM Bible Commentary - Exodus

 

[Joseppi]

1. What is your view of inspiration
2. Why do you hold that view
3. What is the authority you base your view on?

My understanding is given to me by the Holy Ghost and rests upon what is written in the Holy Bible.

My understanding is that inspiration is of God and given to them that have faith and results in God's approval.
I rely on God to give me his truth and to bring to my rememberance what is needful.

I hold to what is written in the Holy Bible because it refutes all error presented by man or devil.

God is the author of the Holy Bible not King James nor any other man.

 

[Joseppi]

...the KJV contains both errors in translation and errors in fact.

It doesn't.

 

[Joseppi]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Does your bible corrupt Genesis 1:1?

 

[Donmech]

Your choice of a standard is irrelevant. Your use of the KJV as the standard is illogical.

But it is my choice.

Citations, not sightings. Citing someone's work properly includes giving a reference. If I cite John Piper, I am quoting or paraphrasing him, recognizing that the words or ideas or his, not originally my own.

WOW!

Any "documentation" which compares modern versions to the KJV is only useful for pointing out differences, not "changes". I do not automatically assume that the KJV is correct (as you seem to).

It is not my intention to convince you one way or the other, I believe the KJV to be the inerrant, inspired word of God. You don't have to agree.

Your assertion that certain versions of the Bible are "perverted" is fine for you but without merit to me unless you have given sound reasons for it. You haven't yet. Stating it doesn't make it so.

Again, I am not trying to get you to see things my way, I've just given information to be considered.

A selection of quotations from letters, without context, selected by someone critical of Westcott and Hort, can hardly be considered a sound presentation of their "spiritual condition".

Why not?

I encourage you to obtain and read The King James Only Controversy (2nd edn.) by James White.

I will check this book out. Thank you

 

[trofimus]

My understanding is given to me by the Holy Ghost and rests upon what is written in the Holy Bible.

My understanding is that inspiration is of God and given to them that have faith and results in God's approval.
I rely on God to give me his truth and to bring to my rememberance what is needful.

I hold to what is written in the Holy Bible because it refutes all error presented by man or devil.

God is the author of the Holy Bible not King James nor any other man.

OK, are all books in the Bible inspired?

Are all books/works/ideas outside the Bible without any inspiration?

How do you know which books are which? Or do you just trust your cultural tradition regarding the modern Bible print?

Is Bible inspired into every word or is there a space for writer´s own thinking or even historical/factual errors?

Can something be true and in the same time not inspired? Is it something "less", then?

 

[Joseppi]

OK, are all books in the Bible inspired?

All the text of the Holy Bible is authorized.
The point being that, when for example, Judas is quoted it is not a quote of what God said.

The Holy Bible is filled with testimonies and histories of events. These testimonies and histories are authorized to be in the book.

Are all books/works/ideas outside the Bible without any inspiration?

All outside the Holy Bible is not authorized as scripture.

How do you know which books are which? Or do you just trust your cultural tradition regarding the modern Bible print?

The Holy Ghost determined what to include in the Holy Bible. And the Holy Bible is the only bible the Holy Ghost will use. If uncorrupted scripture is quoted accurately, as determined by the Holy Ghost, then it is authorized. Private interpretation is not authorized.
When a preacher is preaching and he unwittingly errors then the preacher will find that the flow of the words of the Holy Ghost will cease intil he returns and corrects the problem.

Is Bible inspired into every word or is there a space for writer´s own thinking or even historical/factual errors?

God has the authority and right to allow what he pleases in his book.
In can be that somethings ate left in such fashion as to test the reader.
The scripture says that, All that was written before was written to us to instruct us in righteousness. This being true it can be seen that this primary goal of God's book means that God may allow quotes and histories of evil personages and their intent for reasons pf instruction concerning learning rightly about both good and evil.
And again, the legal testmonies are not the testimonies of God nor the saint associated with a book but are actual freely provided testimonies of select witnesses of events.

Can something be true and in the same time not inspired?

Yes. Testimonies are not inspired but are legal record of a what a witness heard and saw.
And some sayings were deemed worthy of acceptancr even though not taken put of scripture.

Is it something "less", then?

Inspiration is often found in association with a man's spirit when walking in faith. So, for example, David's psalms belong to David and express his thought and intent, but we find God's spirit inspiring his thoughts resulting in prophetic utterances in the midst of his personal prayer etc.

A common mistake for example occurs when people quote Ecclesiasties as if all comments in it are of God when onviously they are but the thoughts of a wise man.

 

[trofimus]

All the text of the Holy Bible is authorized.

By whom? And when?

The Holy Bible is filled with testimonies and histories of events. These testimonies and histories are authorized to be in the book.

OK, we have differences between gospels or quite technical personal notes like "bring me my cloak". What do you mean by being authorized regarding such cases?

The Holy Ghost determined what to include in the Holy Bible.

When? Because the canon of books changed in time many times.

And the Holy Bible is the only bible the Holy Ghost will use.

Is there any evidence for such limitation? People testify frequently that God used various things in their life or even in the common Church history like for example works of Augustin or reformers.

A common mistake for example occurs when people quote Ecclesiasties as if all comments in it are of God when onviously they are but the thoughts of a wise man.

So Ecclesiastes is not inspired in every word?

 

[Joseppi]

I neant to post....

Common sense informs us that there can only be one Holy Book of God.
Our eye must be single and that means that there is only one lamp for our feet, one source of established truth.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Common sense informs us that there can only be one Holy Book of God.

Common sense, as well as spiritual discernment, as well as what the Bible teaches about itself. This is something which too many Christians have forgotten. There cannot be a dozen Bibles all competing with each other, all claiming to be standard versions, and all differing from each other in numerous critical passages.

Just one example should suffice. The total absence of Acts 8:37 from modern Bible versions should have been a HUGE RED FLAG to every Christian. Once you snip out that verse, the passage makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. A very important question was asked, and a clear answer was expected. But only the KJB and the NASV have the answer. So the modern Bible perversions indicate that Philip simply ignored the Ethiopian's question, and went ahead with his baptism. But the question has a very critical bearing on Gospel truth. Should any sinner be baptized unless he has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ? And the answer is given to us by God the Holy Spirit. Only those who BELIEVE WITH ALL THEIR HEART may be baptized. This passage also indicates how a believer must testify of his faith verbally and publicly before being baptized.

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

It is only because the MOST CORRUPT Greek manuscripts were used for the critical texts that this verse is missing. And as someone has pointed out "Can you think of a motive? Easy! They love baptizing babies, and they cannot have the condition of faith, if they are going to do that."

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/baptism/deleted-baptism-verse.php

And this is ONLY ONE EXAMPLE of the mutilation of the Bible. There are hundreds of others (plus thousands of gratuitous omissions).

 

[Dino246]

I neant to post....

Common sense informs us that there can only be one Holy Book of God.
Our eye must be single and that means that there is only one lamp for our feet, one source of established truth.

The bolded part above is, logically, an irrelevant appeal. I wonder, though, to which common sense you appeal. That which leads common men to sin, to reject God and His word, to mock His Son? Perhaps you appeal to the "common sense" that leads Americans to support abortion, reject prayer, and throw God out of every federal institution except coinage? That common sense?

That aside, if there is only one "holy book of God", is it Tyndale? Bishop's? Coverdale's? The Great Bible perhaps? Your "common sense" approach rapidly fails the test of reality.

Common sense, as well as spiritual discernment, as well as what the Bible teaches about itself. This is something which too many Christians have forgotten. There cannot be a dozen Bibles all competing with each other, all claiming to be standard versions, and all differing from each other in numerous critical passages.

... And this is ONLY ONE EXAMPLE of the mutilation of the Bible. There are hundreds of others (plus thousands of gratuitous omissions).

I don't know of any Bible version that claims to be the standard version. Since such a statement is not in the text, it's an anthropomorphism, a fallacy of reification. Some words and phrases can truly be translated different ways. Translators don't always agree on the source materials.

Regarding your example, once again, comparing modern versions to the KJV and claiming the moderns "omit" verses is fallacious; it is just as valid to claim that the KJV has verses added. Without an objective standard (the manuscripts, in lieu of the originals) comparisons are worthless other than to illustrate the existence of differences, but not the validity or accuracy of either.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I don't know of any Bible version that claims to be the standard version.

Well, I 'm sure you have heard of all these claiming to be standard versions:

English Standard Version

New American Standard Bible

Holman Christian Standard Bible

International Standard Version

American Standard Version

Regarding your example, once again, comparing modern versions to the KJV and claiming the moderns "omit" verses is fallacious...

There is no need to continue with wilful ignorance about this matter. There have been dozens of posts showing how and why the critical texts OMIT (1) whole passages, (2) whole verses, (3) phrases, and (4) words. And if you still have not read and studied The Revision Revised then that would indeed be wilful ignorance. There are literally THOUSANDS of omissions in the critical text merely based on primarily two corrupt manuscripts, but generally a handful of corrupt manuscripts -- Aleph A B C D.

 

[trofimus]

Well, I 'm sure you have heard of all these claiming to be standard versions:

English Standard Version

New American Standard Bible

Holman Christian Standard Bible

International Standard Version

American Standard Version

There is no need to continue with wilful ignorance about this matter. There have been dozens of posts showing how and why the critical texts OMIT (1) whole passages, (2) whole verses, (3) phrases, and (4) words. And if you still have not read and studied The Revision Revised then that would indeed be wilful ignorance. There are literally THOUSANDS of omissions in the critical text merely based on primarily two corrupt manuscripts, but generally a handful of corrupt manuscripts -- Aleph A B C D.

Before you will care about words or verses in the NT, you should care why you have Jewish OT used neither by Christ, nor by apostles, nor by the first church.

There are much more significant changes than betwen NT versions.