Bible inspiration

[flaja]

Many modern translation advocates, such as James R. White, claim that no translation of the Bible can be inspired, infallible and inerrant. They also claim that not one single copy of any original Biblical manuscript is without an addition, a deletion, a change or some other copyist error. Modern Bible advocates limit inspiration to the Bible’s original languages and many further limit inspiration to the original autographs.

But, consider what Paul said in II Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Since Timothy lived a good 2,000 years after the first Biblical autograph was prepared, he could not have had access to it. The same likely goes for all Old Testament autographs and he probably did not have access to every NT autograph either because they were not all written by or addressed to him. Timothy had to use copies of most of the Bible’s original autographs.

Since Timothy had a Jewish mother and a Greek father, he certainly spoke Greek, and since he was born in a Hellenic city and traveled with Paul through the Hellenized world and was not even circumcised, it is possible that he did not use Hebrew as his daily language (if he used it at all). This means that Timothy likely used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.

We can reasonably conclude that when Paul told Timothy that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, he was speaking of the Scripture that Timothy had access to and used.

This means that Paul declared that it is imperative that copies of Scripture and translations of Scripture be “given by inspiration of God”.

I am not saying that none of the manuscript copies and none of the translations are corrupt. But, I am saying that is possible for some copies and some translations to be given by inspiration of God.

So why can the Authorized King James translation of the Bible not be just as inspired, inerrant and infallible as the Bible’s original autographs in the Bible’s original languages?

[CTZonEdit]

The time of the KJV has come and gone.

The question really is why would anyone continue to use it today?

Its archaic in language, contains many mistakes. Two of the major reasons to move to other modern and far better translations when studying.

[flaja]

The time of the KJV has come and gone.

The question really is why would anyone continue to use it today?

Its archaic in language, contains many mistakes. Two of the major reasons to move to other modern and far better translations when studying.

Actually the vocabulary that many anti-AKJ see as archaic can still be found in English dictionaries published as recently as 1967 and some of the terms are included in various online dictionaries in use today. The language is not all that archaic.

And note that the thee, thou and ye forms of the pronoun "you" were not in common use when the AKJ was first printed in 1611. These pronouns reflect a time when English had different forms of you for singular and plural, formal and informal use. The translators used these earlier forms of English because the original Hebrew and Greek also had multiple forms of "you". In this regard, the AKJ is a more accurate translation than something like the RSV, NASB and NIV are.

[CoreIssue]

Actually the vocabulary that many anti-AKJ see as archaic can still be found in English dictionaries published as recently as 1967 and some of the terms are included in various online dictionaries in use today. The language is not all that archaic.
Found still but many have changed meanings. I suggest you dig deeper.

In example, villain use to be the good guy.:yessmile:

And we do not say faith of Christ now, but faith in Christ. A thing that has generated many false doctrines and understandings.

So, grammatical usages and such have changed as well as actual word meanings.

I grew up in the antique business. Words and usages have changed for many areas dramatically from even the late 1800s and early 1900s.

And note that the thee, thou and ye forms of the pronoun "you" were not in common use when the AKJ was first printed in 1611. These pronouns reflect a time when English had different forms of you for singular and plural, formal and informal use. The translators used these earlier forms of English because the original Hebrew and Greek also had multiple forms of "you". In this regard, the AKJ is a more accurate translation than something like the RSV, NASB and NIV are.

Actually, that is a false and misleading argument. It is not more accurate for understanding because not using those as common words today means the distinctioins are not understood.

For anyone curious about what is being said click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou).

Add this the simple fact the KJV just flat out mistranslates a lot of words. Such issues have been pointed out in numberous topics on the board.

The KJV is a Bible. But it is an archaic and confusing Bible.

[CoreIssue]

Many modern translation advocates, such as James R. White, claim that no translation of the Bible can be inspired, infallible and inerrant.
This gets into the area of personal opinion.

Sure, you can find tons of liberal theologians who would take such a rejectable stance.

But you can find tons of pro-KJV as well that take the absurd stance only the KJV is the Bible.

And it is the favorite of the cults because of its archaic language and several translation errors. These errors cannot stand the light of day when read in the NIV or NASB, in example.

You are painting with way to big a brush here for the purposes or attempting to uphold a KJV Only stance.
They also claim that not one single copy of any original Biblical manuscript is without an addition, a deletion, a change or some other copyist error.
Another big brush. They state, which is fact, that from the oldest manuscripts forward they all deviate to some degree with each other and we do not have any original autographs to compare them to for determination of 100% accuracy.

The Majority Manuscripts are loaded with prove additions.
Modern Bible advocates limit inspiration to the Bible’s original languages and many further limit inspiration to the original autographs.
Majority Manuscripts are loaded with proven additions. So don't go there as them being the originals.

The KJV was far from the first Bible. It came centuries after others.
But, consider what Paul said in II Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
And here is the old word for word perfection argument that does not old water.

The teachings are most assuredly preserved fully. But the KJV is not word for word true to the originals. Nope.


Since Timothy lived a good 2,000 years after the first Biblical autograph was prepared, he could not have had access to it. The same likely goes for all Old Testament autographs and he probably did not have access to every NT autograph either because they were not all written by or addressed to him. Timothy had to use copies of most of the Bible’s original autographs.

Since Timothy had a Jewish mother and a Greek father, he certainly spoke Greek, and since he was born in a Hellenic city and traveled with Paul through the Hellenized world and was not even circumcised, it is possible that he did not use Hebrew as his daily language (if he used it at all). This means that Timothy likely used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.

We can reasonably conclude that when Paul told Timothy that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, he was speaking of the Scripture that Timothy had access to and used.

This means that Paul declared that it is imperative that copies of Scripture and translations of Scripture be “given by inspiration of God”.

OK. God guides scribes.

But obviously not all of them since there are differences.
I am not saying that none of the manuscript copies and none of the translations are corrupt. But, I am saying that is possible for some copies and some translations to be given by inspiration of God.
And we can know which ones how exactly?

By using the normal tooks of manuscript studies and analysis? Correct?

So why can the Authorized King James translation of the Bible not be just as inspired, inerrant and infallible as the Bible’s original autographs in the Bible’s original languages?

Because we know for fact that the manuscripts used were altered by Catholic Scribes.

And we know the translators of the KJV made big errors with a good number of key words in the Bible. In example there are no candlestands in Revelation and the OT Temple. They were Lampstands. Oil Lampstands.

And the original KJV contained alternative possible translations. It also contained books of the Apocrapha.

So, inspired and inerrant. No way. Not the slightest chance.

But could God still use it? Yes! Even where distorted the teachings were there in fact and the Holy Spirit could guide one around the problems.

Understand the distinction between preserving the teachings and preserving the words exactly.

God did not preserve the words exactly in the KJV. But he preserved the key teachings.

The NIV and NASV go far in being closer to the original autographs. Even the NKJV is superior to the KJV because it corrects many issues.

Are any of them without flaw? No.

Do they preserver the teachings? Yes.

Do some present the facts more purely than others? Yes.

Is the KJV one of the better ones? No.

One can understand the teaching far more clearly with the NIV or the NASB.

As an add, the oldest and cleanest manuscripts do not agree with the KJV. Even the ones with more problems do not agree with the KJV in exactly the same places.

The KJV is Bible but it is not the best Bible nor taken from the best manuscripts.

[CTZonEdit]

Actually the vocabulary that many anti-AKJ see as archaic can still be found in English dictionaries published as recently as 1967 and some of the terms are included in various online dictionaries in use today. The language is not all that archaic.

No, its archaic. No one speaks or communicates in this english style any longer. Society is too far removed from it and there are better versions available.

So I'll ask again why do you still use it? :scratch:

[TLIR]

I use several versions for study, but I use the NLT and the KJV for my personal worship and prayer time because I like them.:yowza:

[Chrystalwuzhere]

I use the NASB... it's my favorite.

The KJV does indeed have errors. Here is one I would like to see explained away...

Read the two verses below about King Ahaziah, and notice that in Chronicles it says he was 22-years-old when he started to reign, and in the book of 2 Kings it says he was 42-years-old when he started to reign. So, which book is right? Which book is wrong? Obviously, they don't agree.

It's a copyist error... and other words were copied wrong too. But as time went by, language (which is a science in and of itself) began to evolve, and we began to understand it more. As they understood it more, they were able to go back to the old manuscripts and retranslate it more accurately.

You can't put a modern translation up beside the KJV and compare them to see which one is correct. You've got to put both Bibles up against the old original manuscripts, compare them to those, and then see which one is more accurate. Scholars know more about grammar and language now than they did 400 years ago.

Besides, the KJV is just a translated version too. The Word of God was written in ancient languages (which themselves have evolved), not the old english.

See verses below.


Forty and two years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also [was] Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
************************************************** **********



Two and twenty years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name [was] Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

[PeterAV]

No error there.simply a bit more there than meets the eye if ya study.
There is such thing as joint rulership.

[CoreIssue]

No error there.simply a bit more there than meets the eye if ya study.
There is such thing as joint rulership.
Yea, yea. Semantics, grammar and word meanings don't count.