# Inspiration, Canonicity, KJV



## Edward (Nov 25, 2017)

AJAY said:


> I was informed by some people that only KJV is the perfect bible



You should probably separate yourself from the KJO (King James Onlyists) cultists. They have made an idol of a particular translation. 

The KJO isn't "perfect". Our confession teaches us, "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". 

As for translations, " 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 in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come"

So, if you are teaching folks who are experts in Early Modern English (Shakespearean scholars, perhaps), then the KJV might be the translation of choice. But it certainly isn't in the vulgar language of most of us these days. 

For debates as to manuscript families, see earlier threads throughout the PB. But that is a separate, if overlapping, issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 25, 2017)

I too agonized over this KJVO issue for some time, and studied it, reading advocates on either side. In addition I used, and continue to use, translations other than the KJV to better understand what I'm reading in difficult passages.
Comparing the NIV, ESV, NASB with the readings in the KJV I find them to be saying the same thing in _most_ cases. There are exceptions on certain controversial passages, and since I'm 69 years old, and cut my teeth on the KJV, I continue to use it as the primary study/daily reading Bible.
For some people in my congregation, from South Africa, Guyana, Cuba, and Korea, the KJV is too difficult, and they prefer the modern translation. Perhaps reading D.A. Carson's 'The King James Version Debate; A Plea For Realism', would be informative. Reading his 'The Inclusive Language Debate,' the chapter on translation is very effective in better understanding the issues with translation.
It is worth remembering that the Latin Vulgate was the primary translation extant for over 1,000 years. That non English speakers/readers all over the world have found salvation in Bibles written in their own language and continue to do so. The KJV, as great a translation as it is, it is not the only game in town.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2017)

AJAY said:


> I am speaking both general and translation because I was more confused about inspiration and preservation of the Bible.
> 
> I was informed by some people that only KJV is the perfect bible and all other translations are corrupted. So confusing
> 
> ...


The so -called KJVO position cannot be held as a legitimate position in regards to the textual sources of the English translations, as one can be preferred Critical text/MT/TR, but not be only one is the real one.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> I too agonized over this KJVO issue for some time, and studied it, reading advocates on either side. In addition I used, and continue to use, translations other than the KJV to better understand what I'm reading in difficult passages.
> Comparing the NIV, ESV, NASB with the readings in the KJV I find them to be saying the same thing in _most_ cases. There are exceptions on certain controversial passages, and since I'm 69 years old, and cut my teeth on the KJV, I continue to use it as the primary study/daily reading Bible.
> For some people in my congregation, from South Africa, Guyana, Cuba, and Korea, the KJV is too difficult, and they prefer the modern translation. Perhaps reading D.A. Carson's 'The King James Version Debate; A Plea For Realism', would be informative. Reading his 'The Inclusive Language Debate,' the chapter on translation is very effective in better understanding the issues with translation.
> It is worth remembering that the Latin Vulgate was the primary translation extant for over 1,000 years. That non English speakers/readers all over the world have found salvation in Bibles written in their own language and continue to do so. The KJV, as great a translation as it is, it is not the only game in town.


So true, as there are many good English translations available to be used today. The KJV version is a good one, but not the only one that can be used.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> As well as the stated above, I have it on good authority (Ligon Duncan, Mike Horton), that Michael Krueger's work exposing higher criticism is good. I mean to get his books myself.........


How are you using that term though?


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 25, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How are you using that term though?



What term?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> What term?


Higher critical


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 25, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Higher critical



I mean it in two ways: 1) Pejoratively- I think little of their methods and 2) with respect to the proximity in thought to the Krauts in the 19th Century. Te KJVO folks didn't attempt to de-mythologize the bible or come up with liberalism, but they do engage in a deconstruction of sorts.

Since I haven't read Michael Krueger's books, I can't say exactly what he has dealt with. Probably not the KJVO issue directly (maybe he has?), but I'd bet there is enough in there about the reliability of Scripture to give one a good foundation in which to defend against the KJVO's......


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Nov 25, 2017)




----------



## Dachaser (Nov 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Krueger’s “Canon Revisited” is worth reading and dismantles most arguments against the canon of scripture.
> 
> If you want some immediate gratification, James White has some debates on YouTube regarding KJV only and also canonicity.


What is sad on this issue is that we seem to have 2 extremes to be avoided concerning the KJV, one that is is the only authorized version by God to be used, and other that it is no good anymore.


----------



## Parmenas (Nov 25, 2017)

Edward said:


> So, if you are teaching folks who are experts in Early Modern English (Shakespearean scholars, perhaps), then the KJV might be the translation of choice. But it certainly isn't in the vulgar language of most of us these days.



The English of the Authorized Version was not the common spoken or written English of 1611. It is Biblical English, and it is certainly the vulgar language (in the sense used in the WCF) of the English-speaking world. Biblical English is simply a different register of English.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parmenas (Nov 25, 2017)

The Trinitarian Bible Society has a wealth of resources on the Received Text and the Authorized Version. I strongly urge any one interested in this subject (which should be all Christians) to read their materials and listen to the lectures and presentations on their Sermon Audio account.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## bookslover (Nov 25, 2017)

Elisha said:


> The English of the Authorized Version was not the common spoken or written English of 1611. It is Biblical English, and it is certainly the vulgar language (in the sense used in the WCF) of the English-speaking world. Biblical English is simply a different register of English.



The English of the KJV was most certainly the ordinary English spoken during Elizabethan times and before (which is why it was already considered somewhat out of date by 1611). If it wasn't the ordinary English of the time, no one would have understood the Bible. There's no such thing as "biblical English."

Also, no translation (in English or in any other language) is inspired. Only the original Hebrew and Greek autographs were inspired. All translations (most certainly including the KJV) are defective to one degree or another.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Nov 25, 2017)

Elisha said:


> The English of the Authorized Version was not the common spoken or written English of 1611. It is Biblical English, and it is certainly the vulgar language (in the sense used in the WCF) of the English-speaking world. Biblical English is simply a different register of English.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 26, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> All translations are what is called, 'mediately inspired'



No.



> that being, the translations contain God's inspiration.



"contains" sounds like the neo-orthodox claim that the Bible only "contains" the Word of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 26, 2017)

Yes they are...


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 27, 2017)

bookslover said:


> The English of the KJV was most certainly the ordinary English spoken during Elizabethan times and before (which is why it was already considered somewhat out of date by 1611). If it wasn't the ordinary English of the time, no one would have understood the Bible. There's no such thing as "biblical English."
> 
> Also, no translation (in English or in any other language) is inspired. Only the original Hebrew and Greek autographs were inspired. All translations (most certainly including the KJV) are defective to one degree or another.



So only the text in its original language is the inspired word of God? This is news to me. What's the point in arguing with others and defending the doctrine of infallibility/inspired word of God if our translations aren't the inspired word of God?


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 27, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> So only the text in its original language is the inspired word of God? This is news to me. What's the point in arguing with others and defending the doctrine of infallibility/inspired word of God if our translations aren't the inspired word of God?


See this thread, particularly Rev. Winzer's posts #4 and #13:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/extent-of-infallibility.33130/#post-409547
I certainly miss his input on the PB.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## bookslover (Nov 27, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> So only the text in its original language is the inspired word of God? This is news to me. What's the point in arguing with others and defending the doctrine of infallibility/inspired word of God if our translations aren't the inspired word of God?



Because inspiration has to do only with the original writings (which we no longer possess). See 1 Peter 1.21, which applies only to the original writings (the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament). The very fact that English translations will often translate the same word or phrase in slightly different ways shows that translations are not inspired - not to mention translations of the Bible into all the other languages!

The point of arguing is that it is a way for us to hone our translations to make them better. There are no inspired translators.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 27, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Yes they are...



No.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 27, 2017)

moral necessity said:


> I certainly miss his input on the PB.



Same. It's always worth typing "MW" as a filter in the PB search tool. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 27, 2017)

A section from the above old thread linked to:

Assertion (bookslover): "Inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy apply only to the original autograph manuscripts of the Scriptures, none of which has survived (in God's providence). No translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (into whatever language, including English) is to be considered in these terms."

Reply (MW): "This is contrary to the New Testament witness. Timothy was not raised with the original autograph mss., and yet the apostle Paul explicitly ascribed the quality of theopneustos to the Scriptures which Timothy read. Furthermore, we have Greek translations of Hebrew Scriptures quoted in the New Testament accompanied with the assertion that these are the words of the Holy Spirit."



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 27, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Because inspiration has to do only with the original writings (which we no longer possess). See 1 Peter 1.21, which applies only to the original writings (the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament). The very fact that English translations will often translate the same word or phrase in slightly different ways shows that translations are not inspired - not to mention translations of the Bible into all the other languages!
> 
> The point of arguing is that it is a way for us to hone our translations to make them better. There are no inspired translators.



This is what MW had to say and I have to agree with him, "You seem to be leaving out of view the fact that the original autographs are described as being *immediately* inspired by God. When the sense of the original is accurately translated into another language it retains its quality as the inspired Word of God, or what may be called *mediate*inspiration. Hence, in Heb. 3:7ff, we read that the Holy Ghost says the words of Ps 95 in Greek (or English in our version), which was originally written in Hebrew. The fact has not been altered that this is the inspired word of God even though it has been translated into another language."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 27, 2017)

bookslover said:


> No.



So, our translations have no inspiration? Preposterous!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 27, 2017)

You fail to understand mediate inspiration vs immediate. From what you propose, none of us have bibles.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 27, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> So, our translations have no inspiration? Preposterous!



Only the original manuscripts are inspired. No translation is inspired.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 27, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> You fail to understand mediate inspiration vs immediate. From what you propose, none of us have bibles.



(1) There's no such thing as "mediate inspiration" (just as there's no such thing as "biblical English" [does that mean there's "biblical Flemish," too?]); (2) All of us have Bibles when we have a copy of a legitimate translation (no paraphrases, please!).


----------



## bookslover (Nov 27, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> This is what MW had to say and I have to agree with him, "You seem to be leaving out of view the fact that the original autographs are described as being *immediately* inspired by God. When the sense of the original is accurately translated into another language it retains its quality as the inspired Word of God, or what may be called *mediate*inspiration. Hence, in Heb. 3:7ff, we read that the Holy Ghost says the words of Ps 95 in Greek (or English in our version), which was originally written in Hebrew. The fact has not been altered that this is the inspired word of God even though it has been translated into another language."



If a translation (into English or any other language) accurately reproduces the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, then you have an accurate translation of the Bible. However, _it's no more than a translation, done by uninspired men and women._ As far as I know, no reputable translator has dared to say that the product of his work is "mediately inspired."


----------



## py3ak (Nov 28, 2017)

*[Moderator]*
This is a split thread from AJAY's original question about canonicity. It may not be likely that this conversation will be edifying or fruitful, but we can at least keep it from obscuring good answers to a very important question.

It is still important on this thread to _argue_ rather than simply _assert_. Some of the posts above do not pass muster in this regard.
*[/Moderator]*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 28, 2017)

bookslover said:


> If a translation (into English or any other language) accurately reproduces the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, then you have an accurate translation of the Bible. However, _it's no more than a translation, done by uninspired men and women._ As far as I know, no reputable translator has dared to say that the product of his work is "mediately inspired."



No is stating that the Apostles hand wrote the translations of the Bible into every language. What at least I'm saying is that the inspired, infalible and authoritative truth is found in these translations. If you wrote a sentence in English and i translated it into Spanish it would say the same exact thing in Spanish as it does in English because i would translate it in the proper manner to reflect that meaning.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 28, 2017)

Regarding "inspiration" of translations, is it not true that if a translation is faithful to the original Hebrew or Greek then it partakes of the inspiration of the original? I answer in the affirmative. Thus, *insofar* as a translation reproduces with clear fidelity the text of the Hebrew or Greek then one can say it is inspired, or as Scott B further qualifies it, "mediately" inspired, that is, not immediately or directly, but via a faithful translation. Is this not common sense?

About the AV being "Biblical English", and not the 16th or 17th century English of the times, it did differ from the common English of that time. It was more an ecclesiastical English that thrived in the Reformation churches (along with the Geneva Bible, and those influenced by Tyndale). Many still recognize it as a Biblical or ecclesiastical English, although that is not the case in the Christian churches generally.

I prefer the AV for its accuracy and beauty, and its reproducing the cadence and "sound" or tone of the majesty and weight of God's word in the Hebrew and Greek. As I am pastoring (co-pastoring, actually) a congregation again I make it a priority not to let the Bible version issue divide the flock.

I will state my informed and cogent view of the Reformation texts (both in the original and in translations) being the far superior over the Catholic / Alexandrian (Egyptian) texts favored by many modern versions, but I will affirm the validity and great usefulness of the modern versions, as well as the Lord manifestly using these versions in the saving of souls and nurturing the churches. It is one thing to take an academic position which, in these days, will bring discord among the people, and a pastoral view, which will facilitate unity. They both have their place. What is needed is balance.
____

P.S. I should add that one of the primary areas of contention between the various schools re the version issue is that of the variants. This contention is legitimate and, in its place, necessary, for to what purpose is discussion of the canon when we do not agree on that of which the canon consists?

So it is not only the valuable birds-eye view of the textual terrain, and the broad statements concerning it, but also the view on the ground – in the trenches, so to speak – with respect to the individual readings of the text, that must be part of this discussion. And this can be done irenically and scholarly, without invalidating others' Bibles in the main, but only in the minutiae of the variants.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 28, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> So only the text in its original language is the inspired word of God? This is news to me. What's the point in arguing with others and defending the doctrine of infallibility/inspired word of God if our translations aren't the inspired word of God?


Only the original books were under the inspiration from/of the Holy Spirit, as they were perfect, without any errors or mistakes within them. None of the translations can claim to be without nay mistakes/errors, but they are close enough to be received now as the word of God unto us in our own language.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 28, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> No is stating that the Apostles hand wrote the translations of the Bible into every language. What at least I'm saying is that the inspired, infalible and authoritative truth is found in these translations. If you wrote a sentence in English and i translated it into Spanish it would say the same exact thing in Spanish as it does in English because i would translate it in the proper manner to reflect that meaning.


Except that there is no direct one to one translation that has ever been made form one language to another.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 28, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Regarding "inspiration" of translations, is it not true that if a translation is faithful to the original Hebrew or Greek then it partakes of the inspiration of the original? I answer in the affirmative. Thus, *insofar* as a translation reproduces with clear fidelity the text of the Hebrew or Greek then one can say it is inspired, or as Scott B further qualifies it, "mediately" inspired, that is, not immediately or directly, but via a faithful translation. Is this not common sense?
> 
> About the AV being "Biblical English", and not the 16th or 17th century English of the times, it did differ from the common English of that time. It was more an ecclesiastical English that thrived in the Reformation churches (along with the Geneva Bible, and those influenced by Tyndale). Many still recognize it as a Biblical or ecclesiastical English, although that is not the case in the Christian churches generally.
> 
> ...


I hold to the superiority of the Critical text over the others, but would also see that the Majority and received texts are good sources to have a translation based upon.


----------



## KMK (Nov 28, 2017)

Edward said:


> As for translations, " 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 in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come"



This was written in a day and age when the Roman Catholic church insisted that the churches in England use the Latin Vulgate. If you want to use this part of the confession to argue against the KJV, then you would have to prove that the KJV is a completely foreign language to modern American English.

I would also point out that your same confessional standards say this: 

WSC *"Q. 107. What doth the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer teach us?*
A. The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, _For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen_, teacheth us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only,[225] and in our prayers to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him;[226] and, in testimony of our desire, and assurance to be heard, we say, Amen."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 28, 2017)

Robert Shaw:


> 2. As the Scriptures were originally written in the languages which, at the time of writing them, were most generally understood, God has hereby intimated his will, that they should be translated into the vernacular language of different nations, that every one may read and understand them. This we maintain in opposition to the Church of Rome, which forbids the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar languages, and declares the indiscriminate reading of them to be highly dangerous. Though the free use of the Scriptures be prohibited by that Church, they were certainly intended by God for all ranks and classes of mankind. All are enjoined to read the Scriptures (John v. 39); and the laity are commended not only for searching them, but for trying the doctrines of their public teachers by them.–Acts xvii. 11. It is, therefore, necessary that the Scriptures should be translated into the language of every nation; and the use of translations is sanctioned by the apostles, who frequently quoted passages of the Old Testament from the Septuagint.




WCF ch 1:8 uses the term, 'immediate' in regards to the original autographs, which in turn would support 'mediate' inspiration.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Except that there is no direct one to one translation that has ever been made form one language to another.



Erasmus did


----------



## Edward (Nov 28, 2017)

KMK said:


> then you would have to prove that the KJV is a completely foreign language to modern American English.



Do you truly not know the difference between the 'vulgar language' (or vulgar tongue) and a 'completely foreign language'? If so, the discussion needs to start at a completely different place.

As for the King James, I am trying to find the post where the Rev. Fred Greco set me straight when I was defending the KJV as in the current vulgar tongue. He does make some good points here: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/vulgar-a-v.50677/

Since I'm still trying to find your starting point, I don't see where your ending point of WLC fits in at all with the KJO discussion.

Edit - strike WLC. You said WSC. I still don't see where it fits the current discussion.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 28, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> WCF ch 1:8 uses the term, 'immediate' in regards to the original autographs, which in turn would support 'mediate' inspiration.



(1) Only because you _want_ it to support "mediate inspiration," Scott. That's an illegitimate inference. The Westminster Standards nowhere either state or imply such a concept regarding translations into vernacular languages.

(2) I love Robert Shaw's commentary on the Westminster Standards. I think it's the best book on that subject.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 29, 2017)

When talking about the Westminster Standards and the Bible, this is a new, scholarly book that bears on the subject, _Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture_, by Dr. (& pastor) Garnet Howard Milne.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 29, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Erasmus did


Not true, as he amended the Greek text used at times, as he used Latin Vulgate variants at times, and once again, there is no fully 100 % word for word translation available.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 29, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When talking about the Westminster Standards and the Bible, this is a new, scholarly book that bears on the subject, _Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture_, by Dr. (& pastor) Garnet Howard Milne.


The preservation refers to the original languages texts, as God has assembled enough of the original via the manuscripts and other sources to reconstruct the original texts very closely, bu does not apply to any translation.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 29, 2017)

bookslover said:


> (1) Only because you _want_ it to support "mediate inspiration," Scott. That's an illegitimate inference. The Westminster Standards nowhere either state or imply such a concept regarding translations into vernacular languages.
> 
> (2) I love Robert Shaw's commentary on the Westminster Standards. I think it's the best book on that subject.


Inspiration was just reserved to the originals, and any other viewpoint would be akin to the fallacy of KJVO.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 29, 2017)

Not really; If the original autographs are the only inspired documents, we have useless bibles. No one believes that (except u and Richard, apparently).

The distinction between mediate and immediate needs to be considered; as well, (I)nspiration vs (i)nspiration. 

The bible, translated carries along the inspiration in that the totality of the translations have the tenor of the inspiration, from the originals.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 29, 2017)

Something from Sproul on the issue where he quotes Calvin:

A further distinction that must be made is the distinction between immediate and mediate general revelation. Immediate general revelation occurs without an intermediating agency. Mediate general revelation occurs through an intermediating agency. John Calvin described immediate general revelation in his_Institutes of the Christian Religion_:

There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity [_divinitatis sensum_]. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty (I.3.1).

In other words, God has revealed himself by directly implanting knowledge about Himself in all men. In a later chapter, Calvin described the mediate general revelation that God accomplishes through His created works:

The final goal of the blessed life, moreover, rests in the knowledge of God [cf.John 17:3]. Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to happiness, he not only sowed in men’s minds that seed of religion of which we have spoken, but revealed himself and daily discloses himself in the whole workmanship of the universe. As a consequence, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him (_Institutes_, I.5.1).


----------



## Parakaleo (Nov 29, 2017)

Look, when the _church_ (not a publishing house) comes together and calls for scholars and ordained men to produce a new translation of Scripture for English speakers (or the civil magistrate calls on the _church_ to do this), and when they produce something that is as masterful and clear as the King James Version, then I will consider switching. Not until.

Might I suggest that the English-speaking _church_ has not done this in 400 years, because there's really no _need _for it?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 29, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When talking about the Westminster Standards and the Bible, this is a new, scholarly book that bears on the subject, _Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture_, by Dr. (& pastor) Garnet Howard Milne.


Brother Steve (Jerusalem Blade) had mentioned getting this book in another thread, and when Steve talks I listen so I went for it. If it seems Dr. Milne is just stating the obvious, the Puritans believed the Bible, there is much meat in this text. Not being that familiar with Church history, as I kept reading I learned a lot that I hadn't known.
Textual criticism was alive and well during the Puritan era. The Puritans were aware of scribal errors and variance in translations. They still believed that the Scriptures were, as WCF 1:8 states, 'kept pure in all ages.' Dr. Milne quotes many of them throughout the book to prove it from Augustine and Calvin on up into the Puritans, some of whom are known to me, and many who heretofore were not.
He delves into such controversies as that of John Goodwin (1594-1665), whose position was, "The sense and doctrine of Scripture is preserved, but none can be certain that the Scripture is the Word of God." This created quite a stir in 1646 and I'm surprised that he survived to live to a ripe old age.(by 17 century standards)
There is one thing that disturbs within the book, Dr. Milne being highly critical of A.A. Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd and in particular B.B. Warfield ;


> In the nineteenth century those like Benjamin Warfield embraced Baconian inductivism and were willing to allow the teaching of the book of Genesis on origins on the basis of the new scientific consensus around Darwinian evolution and a greater age of the earth.
> Warfield also found his epistemological view to be compatible with the new secular scientific approach to textual criticism. He believed that the autographic text of Scripture mist be sought in all manuscripts, including those recently discovered. He also taught that it might not be possible to locate all of the autographic text of Scripture.
> His espousal of Westcott and Hort's new subjective criteria for deciding what constituted the true text meant that the old certainty of the Reformers and their Puritan heirs that the possessed the complete Word of God as it had been collated in the New Testament by Erasmus, Beza and Stephanus was lost. In its place a moral certainty, or probability the the complete text was located or locatable, was substituted.



Dr Milne is an advocate of the Received Text and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that he would criticize advocates of the Critical Text. On the other hand, Dr Warfield is portrayed by most as a paragon of Reformed thought and an inerrant Bible. I read this weeks ago, and this brief overview doesn't come close to doing the book justice. I'm so glad that Steve recommended it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Nov 29, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Something from Sproul on the issue where he quotes Calvin:
> 
> A further distinction that must be made is the distinction between immediate and mediate general revelation. Immediate general revelation occurs without an intermediating agency. Mediate general revelation occurs through an intermediating agency. John Calvin described immediate general revelation in his_Institutes of the Christian Religion_:
> 
> ...



Calvin acknowledges general revelation, which every orthodox person does. So? If you're trying to make a connection between general revelation and so-called "mediate inspiration," you can't - as the latter doesn't exist.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 29, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> . . .(or the civil magistrate calls on the _church_ to do this). . .



And good luck with that. I'm trying to imagine our current president ("The Child") calling on the church to produce a new English translation of the Bible. Nope. Can't do it.


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 29, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The preservation refers to the original languages texts, as God has assembled enough of the original via the manuscripts and other sources to reconstruct the original texts very closely, bu does not apply to any translation.


On the contrary, according to Dr. Milne's book Divine preservation does apply to translations, as far as the Puritans noted in his book are concerned. 
(page 149)


> When the Westminster divines wrote that God had kept the Scriptures _pure_ in all ages (WFC 1:8), they specifically stared that these were the original texts which had been immediately inspired by God. This meant that the very same text God had dictated to the penmen of Scripture had been kept intact and as a consequence it was deemed 'authentical' containing their own intrinsic authority; and they were also therefore to be appealed to by the Church 'in all controversies in religion'.
> The Reformed orthodox produced many arguments to show that, contrary to the Roman Catholic view, the extant Scriptures were pure in regard to matter, doctrine and text. The very same text written by the Prophets and Apostles was available to them in the seventeenth century.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 29, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> On the contrary, according to Dr. Milne's book Divine preservation does apply to translations, as far as the Puritans noted in his book are concerned.
> (page 149)


Perhaps they taught it, but the scriptures themselves assure us that only the original texts that were penned down by the various writers were without errors ans mistakes, totally inerrant.
Good Translations today would be infallible, but none of them would be inspired, as that brings in the bad KJVO position.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 29, 2017)

bookslover said:


> (1) Only because you _want_ it to support "mediate inspiration," Scott. That's an illegitimate inference. The Westminster Standards nowhere either state or imply such a concept regarding translations into vernacular languages.
> 
> (2) I love Robert Shaw's commentary on the Westminster Standards. I think it's the best book on that subject.


Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit inspiration would be applied towards His Apostles and their original books, but did not promise that would carry on forward to any translation made off of them.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 29, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Calvin acknowledges general revelation, which every orthodox person does. So? If you're trying to make a connection between general revelation and so-called "mediate inspiration," you can't - as the latter doesn't exist.


Correct, as there is only general revelation from creation, and special through the sacred scriptures themselves, and only the originals themselves.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 29, 2017)

Again, your logic is skewed. You have essentially said that we all don’t have any access to a inspired text in our language.

Think of the means of grace every Lords day; the Pastor reads from the word verbatim. That’s meaningless. It is not God speaking, but a man. Preposterous!


----------



## TrustGzus (Nov 29, 2017)

Scott, I’m struggling to understand how you conclude translations are useless if God didn’t breath in that language.

God-breathed is what inspiration means. God breathed Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic.

Do you think God breathed English? But assuming he didn’t breath English, it seems like a non sequiteur to conclude English translation of the original languages is useless.

How are you jumping from the idea that if English isn’t breathed out by God that a translation into English is without any use? I just don’t get that leap.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 29, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Good Translations today would be infallible, but none of them would be inspired, as that brings in the bad KJVO position.



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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 29, 2017)

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.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 29, 2017)

Whoever thinks that the translations are not inspired in the least, please provide me with a list of words from the TR and then tell me what is not in the KJV bible that is in the original autograph? 

As well, Is this God's word?


*Romans 11:5 *

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 11:5.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 29, 2017)

Turretin writes:

The Authentic Version of Scripture QUESTION 11: Are the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New the only authentic ones? Affirmative, against the Roman Catholics. I. Some versions of Scripture are original and primary, originally prepared by the authors; others are secondary, versions in other languages into which it has been translated. No one denies that the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New are original and first written, but there is a controversy between us and the Roman Catholics as to whether both are authentic, and deserve in themselves both faith and authority, and whether all other versions are to be tested by them.

III. An authentic writing is one with regard to which all factors together produce confidence, and to which complete trust should be given in its field, from which it is evident both that it must come from the author whose name it bears, and that everything in it must be written as he wanted it written. Such a writing can be authentic in either of two senses--primary and original and secondary and derivative. The primary sense applies to what bears its own authentication, which proves itself by itself, and which is believed and clearly should be believed on its own showing (ob seipsum). In this category are the original copies of royal edicts, of the decrees of magistrates, wills, contracts, and anything else actually written by the author. In the secondary group are all copies accurately and faithfully made by qualified (idoneus) persons, such as the functionaries appointed and authorized by public authority to copy the edicts of princes and other public documents, or the various honest and faithful scribes and copyists of books and other writings. In the first sense only the "autographs" of Moses, the prophets and the apostles are authentic, but in the second sense faithful and accurate copies are also. IV. Furthermore, the authority of such authentic writing has two aspects: one rests on the substance of the matter with which it deals (in rebus ipsis de quibus id agitur), and concerns the people to whom the writing is directed; the other concerns the word itself and the writing and applies to the copies and translations made from it, and receives all its authority (ius) from the original, so that it should be compared to that authentic writing and corrected if there is any difference. The first kind of authority (authoritas) may be greater or less, depending on the authority of him by whom the writing was issued, and whether he has more or less authority (imperium) over the people to whom he addresses it. With the Holy Scripture, authority is found to the greatest degree, such as cannot reside in any other writing, since we ought simply to obey God, and be obedient to everything which he has, in his most holy authentic written Word, required either to be believed or to be done, on account of that supreme authority which he holds over mankind, as over all creation, and that supreme truth and wisdom which reside in him. But the second kind of authority consists in this, that faithful and accurate copies, not less than autographs, are norms for all other copies of his writing and for translations. If any discrepancy is found in these, whether it conflicts with the originals or the true copies, they are not worthy of the name "authentic," and must be rejected as false and corrupted, and there is no other reason for this rejection except the discrepancy.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 29, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Not true, as he amended the Greek text used at times, as he used Latin Vulgate variants at times, and once again, there is no fully 100 % word for word translation available.



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?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 29, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Good Translations today would be infallible, but none of them would be inspired, as that brings in the bad KJVO position.





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.



*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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 30, 2017)

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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 30, 2017)

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


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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?


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.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

Only the authors of the sacred original scriptures have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


The translations are the word of God to us, but none of them were or are inspired.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


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.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

David, 
U do understand that even the Apostle Paul quoted from the Septuagint in our scriptures? Was Pauls citation uninspired?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


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.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


Do not need them to be inspired to be the word of god to us for today.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> U do understand that even the Apostle Paul quoted from the Septuagint in our scriptures? Was Pauls citation uninspired?


No, for Jude quoted from book of Enoch, and that book was not inspired, but that portion used was true.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

Yes, u do. If it is God's words, then they have to be inspired.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

See the difference between men's words and God's word.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 1, 2017)

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 ?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

In other words, one is (I)nspired and the other, (i)nspired.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

David,
I cited Owen, Turretin and Reymond, earlier in this thread; you want to interact with them?


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 1, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> In other words, one is (I)nspired and the other, (i)nspired.


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."


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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 1, 2017)

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.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The translations are the word of God to us, but none of them were or are inspired.


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.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

"Can you explain how something can be the Word of God and not be inspired?"

Exactly my point.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 1, 2017)

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?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


Only the Originals themselves though had divine inspiration. There are no copies that exist from them directly unto us.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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.​
> ...


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.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Only the Originals themselves though had divine inspiration. There are no copies that exist from them directly unto us.


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.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> "Can you explain how something can be the Word of God and not be inspired?"
> 
> Exactly my point.


Do you hold to mediating inspiration then?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

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.


The translations are infallible witnesses to the originals, but none of them were inspired, nor perfect.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The translations are infallible witnesses to the originals, but none of them were inspired, nor perfect.


Prove it.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> 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.


No, I believe that we now have the infallible word of god due to them being very close to the originals, but once again, no translation can claim direct inspiration in their creation process.
We have an infallible version, but the originals were inerrant.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Prove it.


Prove what, the no version of the bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in same fashion the originals all were?


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> No, I believe that we now have the infallible word of god due to them being very close to the originals, but once again, no translation can claim direct inspiration in their creation process.
> We have an infallible version, but the originals were inerrant.


Nobody is claiming direct inspiration for translations--only mediate inspiration.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Prove what, the no version of the bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in same fashion the originals all were?


Prove (citing some sources) that your teaching on inspiration is true and is consistent with the Reformed faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Prove (citing some sources) that your teaching on inspiration is true and is consistent with the Reformed faith.


May I ask what is meant by mediating inspiration?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Nobody is claiming direct inspiration for translations--only mediate inspiration.


I have read and been taught infallibility of versions, but never heard of mediating inspiration!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2017)

Are u reading the thread. ‘Mediate’ inspiration has been mentioned a number of times.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I have read and been taught infallibility of versions, but never heard of mediating inspiration!


Why are you arguing against it if you aren't familiar with it?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 1, 2017)

David, you appear not to listen or read very closely. "Mediate" in the sense we are using here, means something to be conveyed through an intermediate source to another location while retaining its essential character.

Have you not been able to read and understand the quotes from theologians on this topic that Scott Bushey gave in posts 45-63?

What is mediate as distinguished from immediate in our discussion? Inspiration of the original Scripture is immediate, that is, direct, from God. An example of mediate inspiration is the essential content of direct inspiration conveyed indirectly—by faithfully reproducing its essence via translation—into another language.

I do go into this in my post 86. Did you not take the time to consider that? I would read this, and the posts of others (like Scott's), before continuing. I don't want to think that you are dragging this discussion along merely to rack up more posts so as to boost your standing. I want to be gentle in this, but you glaringly display that your "Senior" posts rating is merely inflated by your style of terse and unscholarly—I should also say glib—discussion, and that many with Freshman rating are way more knowledgeable than you on many topics. When I listen to your ill-informed arguments, I still think of you as a Freshman in a posting frenzy so as to make a "name" for yourself.

I consider you a brother in Christ, but to speak the truth to you in love is necessary. Be quick to hear, slow to speak. Study, buy and read good books, listen to the learned, so that you grow in understanding.

When I come across a topic being discussed that is beyond my comprehension (which is often), I quietly listen in and try to learn. I have learned a lot here at PB, keeping my mouth shut, and my eyes and mind open. I am really very ignorant in certain areas, and the only way I can remedy that is to admit my limitations and seek understanding. I have often bought materials so as to help in that.

This is a learning and teaching environment for many of us. Your style and behavior are anomalous to the spirit of this board. There are "Freshmen" here who are way more advanced in many areas than I, and when they speak I listen, and ponder. They simply don't post unless they have something to say. Yet their names are highly esteemed (not their posts record) for their learnedness is obvious. You ought to aim for _that_ kind of reputation, and not the one you're getting.

I am very busy, with many responsibilities, and I do not like such rather obvious topics (though we may disagree in areas) to be dragged out needlessly, as I consider you to be doing. Find some other past-time if you must make "busy-work" for yourself, but don't waste the time of those who have other serious work to do. Please.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> David, you appear not to listen or read very closely. "Mediate" in the sense we are using here, means something to be conveyed through an intermediate source to another location while retaining its essential character.
> 
> Have you not been able to read and understand the quotes from theologians on this topic that Scott Bushey gave in posts 45-63?
> 
> ...


If we use that term to mediate inspiration to mean that the translation is valid and the word of God to us dueto being translated from the original language source texts, I agree with that, but was just suggesting that there are no perfect translation, as inspiration like the Apostles had to be able to record down without errors/mistakes t all did not carry over from them.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2017)

You're still not getting it; Again, if it is the W of G, it has to be inspired. All translations carry over the intended inspiration that God commanded when the commission was given. The translations are not inspired in an absolute sense, they are the means of giving the scriptures to all tongues, tribes and nations, but they are inspired in that the word of God is there in these translations.

To the original penners of the Old and NT, immediately inspired.
In the translations, mediately.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2017)

Example: Take the word "THE" in Hebrew or Greek. Would u say that this word is accurate with the autographs? If so, is this word inspired?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> You're still not getting it; Again, if it is the W of G, it has to be inspired. All translations carry over the intended inspiration that God commanded when the commission was given. The translations are not inspired in an absolute sense, they are the means of giving the scriptures to all tongues, tribes and nations, but they are inspired in that the word of God is there in these translations.
> 
> To the original penners of the Old and NT, immediately inspired.
> In the translations, mediately.


The Originals were without any errors/mistakes within them, but no translation can claim that.
We do not need a perfect translation to have the word of God to us.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> David, you appear not to listen or read very closely. "Mediate" in the sense we are using here, means something to be conveyed through an intermediate source to another location while retaining its essential character.
> 
> Have you not been able to read and understand the quotes from theologians on this topic that Scott Bushey gave in posts 45-63?
> 
> ...


I really do appreciate your grace shown to me in this posting, and will try to do better in my postings.
You do not see any translation as being perfect would you?


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I really do appreciate your grace shown to me in this posting, and will try to do better in my postings.
> You do not see any translation as being perfect would you?





Dachaser said:


> The Originals were without any errors/mistakes within them, but no translation can claim that.
> We do not need a perfect translation to have the word of God to us.



David,
Nobody on this thread has claimed that any of our translations are perfect--I would be surprised if anyone here were to make that claim. I'm not really sure where you got that idea.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> David,
> Nobody on this thread has claimed that any of our translations are perfect--I would be surprised if anyone here were to make that claim. I'm not really sure where you got that idea.


I am not saying that anyone here is, but there does seem to be many that view anything not translated from TR as being dubious, as modern versions that use Critical Greek text are worse than due to that?


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not saying that anyone here is, but there does seem to be many that view anything not translated from TR as being dubious, as modern versions that use Critical Greek text are worse than due to that?


The TR has undergone many editions--the idea that any one edition is flawless is untenable. However, some of us are convinced that the NA/USB texts are inferior to the traditional text.

However, you seem to be confusing the issues of textual criticism and translation--we were talking about the authority of the English translations stemming from them being a faithful representation of the Greek or Hebrew; what Greek text is to be preferred is a different matter.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2017)

<scratching my head> Amazing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> No, I believe that we now have the infallible word of god due to them being very close to the originals, but once again, no translation can claim direct inspiration in their creation process.
> We have an infallible version, but the originals were inerrant.



This doesn't even make sense, David. Infallible and inerrant mean the same thing. Also, you have absolutely no proof that there are no translations which were copied from the original....none. You really think the Creator of all things who upholds all things would be so clumsy as to not make sure that his exact words weren't copied down from the originals? LOL! 2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...". He didn't say only the originals he said his scripture is.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Dec 2, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Infallible and inerrant mean the same thing.


Actually, Sarah, the terms, while related, are not strictly synonymous. "Inerrant" means that the Bible _does not_ err; "infallible" means that it _cannot_ err.
For the record, I agree with the arguments for mediate inspiration; in this age of dubious textual criticism, however, it is wise to accurately employ our terminology (and, David, I do not believe that you are using these terms appropriately).

Sarah, I was replying to a post of yours, which you subsequently deleted, but I would just add that there is a complicated history with regard to these terms, as I addressed in an article a number of years ago: http://www.erfm.org/biblical-inerrancy.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 2, 2017)

When the pastor stands up and before reading from, for example the KJV, proclaims 'hear now the very word of God,' is he saying the truth or not? Do we have the very word of God, even in translation, or not? Or should he say, hear now what might be the very word of God?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 2, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Actually, Sarah, the terms, while related, are not strictly synonymous. "Inerrant" means that the Bible _does not_ err; "infallible" means that it _cannot_ err.
> For the record, I agree with the arguments for mediate inspiration; in this age of dubious textual criticism, however, it is wise to accurately employ our terminology (and, David, I do not believe that you are using these terms appropriately).
> 
> Sarah, I was replying to a post of yours, which you subsequently deleted, but I would just add that there is a complicated history with regard to these terms, as I addressed in an article about number of years ago: http://www.erfm.org/biblical-inerrancy.html



"We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated."

In regards to the Bible, those two terms mean the same. In regards to humans, those two terms are not exactly the same.
1. God is inerrant and infallible or infallible and inerrant in all he says and does.
2. Jane was inerrant on her math test but is not infallible on all math tests.
But we aren't talking about humans we are talking about Scripture so yes the terms are the same


----------



## Steve Curtis (Dec 2, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished,





OPC'n said:


> the terms are the same


If they can be distinguished, they are not "strictly synonymous," which was all that I said. This has been a veritable minefield in Biblical scholarship; precision is critical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 2, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> If they can be distinguished, they are not "strictly synonymous," which was all that I said. This has been a veritable minefield in Biblical scholarship; precision is critical.



It probably was a minefield to those who attribute God's attributes to those being like man's. But when viewed according to his attributes they are the same. But I won't keep arguing.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2017)

The idea of "mediate inspiration" is not a valid idea because God has not promised that copies will be perfect.

John Frame:

_He has not, in other words, promised to keep all copyists from error. . .the process of copying is a fallible process. . .There is no passage in Scripture, nor any biblical principle, that promises otherwise.

So the limitation of inspiration (and hence of authority, infallibility, and inerrancy) to the autographic text is a biblical limitation._ (from his "Systematic Theology," pages 635-636)

God, in giving us His written Word, controlled the writers of it in such a way that they wrote exactly what He wanted written, even while He preserved their own personalities, writing styles, etc. Therefore, what they wrote is inspired and without error.

However, inspiration - even a "mediate" inspiration - cannot be attributed to any translation of the Bible because we must always assume - in principle - that translations can contain errors, and this is because, as Frame notes, God has not guaranteed that translators and copyists will not commit errors.

A Bible translation that accurately reflects the originals can be said to possess the _authority_ of the originals (and here I disagree with Frame on this one item), but they cannot be said to possess the _inspiration_ of the originals, again, because of the possibility of errors in translation or copying, a possibility that did not exist when the autographs were written. 

God has promised to preserve His Word down through the ages. But He did not promise to preserve copyists and translators from making mistakes.

An inspired document that contains errors (or that must admit even the mere _possibility_ of such) is a contradiction. So, "mediate inspiration" is not a valid concept.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2017)

bookslover said:


> The idea of "mediate inspiration" is not a valid idea because God has not promised that copies will be perfect.
> 
> John Frame:
> 
> ...



I just wonder how God could create everything on earth, uphold it in his power, know all things, be in all places at one time, etc etc and yet he failed at finding a person who could accurately translate the Bible. Really, the ONE piece of evidence which tells everything we know (well what we thought we knew) about God and his plan and his works is just scraps paper. "God promised to preserve his Word which is full of errors down through the ages". How do you say with a straight face is beyond me.

Yes, I'm being very cheeky. But I think it's beyond ridiculous that anyone in their right mind would believe in something that they feel is full of errors.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 3, 2017)

You miss the teees for the Forrest, Richard.

Let me ask it another way: is the word ‘the’ in Hebrew and Greek accurate to the original autographs and if so, is that word inspired in the translation?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 3, 2017)

Sarah, 
Not to forget mentioning the weekly exhortation from all our pulpits when the call to worship is announced, ‘God is speaking’,. Every pastor is breaking the 9th commandment.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Sarah,
> Not to forget mentioning the weekly exhortation from all our pulpits when the call to worship is announced, ‘God is speaking’,. Every pastor is breaking the 9th commandment.



Well, Scott, maybe the pastors are not breaking the 9th Commandment after all. I mean who's to say there's even a 9th Commandment since the Bible is full of errors. Maybe some dude added the 9th Commandment when he translated the Bible.....wait there was no original text for him to translate from.....gosh, I keep forgetting that part. Ok, I'll start over. Maybe................ since no one had the original texts from which to translate the Bible everything is just made up. I mean how do you translate a book into another language when you've lost the source you want to translate? Goodness! I might as well make up my own translation. You can too, Scott, in your spare time. ugh!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Dec 3, 2017)

1. We know that the inspired Word is profitable for doctrine, etc. Since Paul did not hand Timothy the autographa, whatever terminology we use should allow us to consider the scriptures we have today as inspired.

2. We know from NT example that translations are acceptable.

3. We know that though the transmission can contain errors that God providentially preserves His Word.

4. We know that the diversity in text families does not produce doctrinal disagreements between the families. Where something is unclear in one, it is clarified by another.

Conclusion:

Whether we call it mediate inspiration (I agree with this terminology) or something else, we have the inspired Word of God. We _consider_ what we have to be inspired, infallible and inerrant. The possibility of error in transmission does not shake how we _consider_ God's word as we have it. We _trust_ that God has preserved His Word sufficiently and that it is therefore to be used as the inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God.


----------



## timfost (Dec 3, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> full of errors.



Sarah, is anyone actually saying this?


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2017)

timfost said:


> Sarah, is anyone actually saying this?



Yes, Tim, some people are. If you would like me to copy and paste every time someone said that our translations have errors I can do that for you.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> "God promised to preserve his Word which is full of errors down through the ages". How do you say with a straight face is beyond me.
> 
> Yes, I'm being very cheeky. But I think it's beyond ridiculous that anyone in their right mind would believe in something that they feel is full of errors.



Your words between the quotation marks are not, in fact, a quotation from what I wrote. You made an _error_. Do you see how easily that can be done?

It is a fact that copyists have made errors down through the centuries - or the entire science of textual criticism would not exist.

I have not said, nor do I believe, that the Bible is "full of errors." Thanks to God's preservation of His Word through the centuries - but without guaranteeing that copyists would not make mistakes - we can be sure that we have a 99% certainty that we have His Word in our Bibles. And none of the errors that copyists have made concern any of the Word's major doctrines - another example of God's preservation.

Again, _inspiration_ has to do with how the autographs came into being and to their contents. _Preservation_ has to do with how what God has written has continued to come down to us through the centuries. The two are not the same, and inspiration does not apply to the products of the copyists in preservation.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Let me ask it another way: is the word ‘the’ in Hebrew and Greek accurate to the original autographs and if so, is that word inspired in the translation?



(1) wherever the Hebrew and Greek use the word "the" in the autographs, it is a word inspired by God to be used there.

(2) the translation of the word "the" is not inspired. It is an accurate human translation of an inspired word, but the translation is not inspired.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 3, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Your words between the quotation marks are not, in fact, a quotation from what I wrote. You made an _error_. Do you see how easily that can be done?
> 
> It is a fact that copyists have made errors down through the centuries - or the entire science of textual criticism would not exist.
> 
> ...



Ok, Richard, let me lay out what yours and some others logic looks like: 
1) God is inept because he couldn't even keep his Word which he gave to apostles from being lost in order to have it translated into other languages. 
2) God is inept because he couldn't even find a translator (should we even be using this word since the original was lost before being translated?) who could translate ummmmm what are we translating again? Anyway, he couldn't find a translator to translate his Word without errors. I'm still confused about what we are now translating since the original texts were lost. 
3) What we now have is a 99% accurate Bible. How we know 99% is accurate since the original text was lost I'm confused about. How do you know 99% is accurate you have nothing to compare it to.
4) From where did we get the 99% accurate translation of the Bible since the original text was lost? Don't tell me God inspired some guy to rewrite the Bible but with 1% errors lol. 

"Your words between the quotation marks are not, in fact, a quotation from what I wrote. You made an _error_. Do you see how easily that can be done?" Let's pretend I accidentally made an error in quoting you because I'm a poor reader ( I actually was trying to make a point....), I'm not a person God would pick to translate his word lol.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 3, 2017)

Richard, you said (post 117),

God, in giving us His written Word, controlled the writers of it in such a way that they wrote exactly what He wanted written, even while He preserved their own personalities, writing styles, etc. Therefore, what they wrote is inspired and without error...

An inspired document that contains errors (or that must admit even the mere _possibility_ of such) is a contradiction.​
In codex Vaticanus in Matt 1:7, Asaph is wrongly written instead of the correct Asa, and in verse 10 Amos is wrongly written instead off the correct Amon. I suppose you have thus eliminated the primary exemplar of the Critical Text.

You also said (appended to the last sentence of yours I quoted) :

So, "mediate inspiration" is not a valid concept.​
The view I posit is that _*insofar*_ as a translation faithfully (accurately) conveys the essential meaning of an original it then mediately or indirectly partakes of its inspiration, i.e., second hand, if you will.

The "insofar" qualification then opens for minute examination the translation
vis-à-vis the original text, and what then arises is the issue of the variant readings, and their correctness or falsity.

But even before the translation issue is the integrity of the original mss issue. With regard to the example from Matthew 1 above, is it not true that the original I referred to is in error?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Dec 3, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Yes, Tim, some people are. If you would like me to copy and paste every time someone said that our translations have errors I can do that for you.



Sarah,

In my thinking, "having errors" and "full of errors" are different. Using the word "full" seems to exaggerate what was actually said. Am I wrong? I know that when I exaggerate my wife's words when we have a disagreement, this tends to make things worse.

Does this make sense?


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> What we now have is a 99% accurate Bible. How we know 99% is accurate since the original text was lost I'm confused about. How do you know 99% is accurate you have nothing to compare it to.



The original autograph _documents_ are now lost, but the original _text_ has survived due to God's providence. We no longer have the autographs - everyone is agreed on this. But we still have the original text due to all the copying that has gone on through the centuries, ever since the very first copies from the originals were made (by hand, of course).

A simple example: if I write the words "My cat is nuts"* on a piece of paper, then make 10 copies on a Xerox machine, then throw my original away, I still have the original _text_ even though the original _document_ has been destroyed. (The one thing wrong with this example is that a Xerox machine will copy perfectly, although a scribe making a copy by hand can potentially make a mistake.)

And, thanks to the science of textual criticism, we are able to compare and contrast all these copies (and partial copies) to determine what the true text is. And, as I wrote before, we have a 99% certainty of what the text is.

*My cat is, in fact, nuts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In codex Vaticanus in Matt 1:7, Asaph is wrongly written instead of the correct Asa, and in verse 10 Amos is wrongly written instead off the correct Amon. I suppose you have thus eliminated the primary exemplar of the Critical Text.
> 
> But even before the translation issue is the integrity of the original mss issue. With regard to the example from Matthew 1 above, is it not true that the original I referred to is in error?



I might not be correctly understanding your use, in this context, of the word "original." But, Codex Vaticanus is not an _original_, it is a _copy_ made long after the _original_ was inspired by God.

Neither a copy (of a Hebrew or Greek document) nor a translation (into some modern language) can be considered inspired because both are the work of mere uninspired men. They are merely copies of an inspired original (which we no longer have, as you know). Even a perfect (not even one mistake) copy cannot be considered ("mediately") inspired because it is only a copy of what God had _already_ had written through inspiration.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 4, 2017)

I'll be out of town all day tomorrow (Monday, 12/4), but we can re-engage once I'm back.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 4, 2017)

I woke up thinking about this thread and the issues at stake. Surely it's a very simple issue being clouded by an argument that doesn't take into account that God has promised the quality of inspiration in his word. This is taught throughout the Scripture; for a NT text see, as has been offered before, 2 Timothy 3:16 where the Scripture available to Timothy *is* inspired. The quality of inspiration in the Scripture to the end of the world is something God must maintain; it's humanly impossible but with God it's possible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 4, 2017)

Since the original autographs were written on papyrus, and later on vellum, and as scrolls rather than codices (books as we know them) wear and tear was inevitable. According to this Wiki article codices didn't come into use until the 4th and 5th centuries. Say that to say, it is no wonder that the original autographs appear to be lost.
On the other hand, the scroll of Isaiah discovered in 1947, two thousand years after it was written, generates some hope that the original autographs of the NT may someday be found. This Wiki article will be of interest in that this scroll contains the complete book of Isaiah, all 66 books, and though there are variants and errors, is largely the book as we know it.
Referring to the 'Critical Text' of the NT, the man some love to hate, FJA Hort (of Westcott and Hort) ;
Fenton John Anthony Hort, The Greek New Testament : Introduction 1886 ;


> *With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is no variation or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism ; and here therefore an editor is merely a transcriber.* The same may be said with substantial truth respecting those various readings which have never been received, and in all probability never will be received, into any printed text. *The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism.*
> 
> If the principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. *Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgment in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one sixtieth of the whole New Testament In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.*
> 
> Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testament, which might seem to be confirmed by language used here and there in the following pages, *we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic's labours.*


Say all this to say, whether we accept the term 'mediate inspiration', or not, the NT as we have it is indisputably the Word of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 4, 2017)

and if it is 'the Word of God', it must have inspiration; else, how is it men are saved under the non-inspired renditions?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 4, 2017)

Richard, responding to your post 131 (and I note that you subscribe to the WCF), you seem to be saying that there are no inspired Scriptures extant today, and that they disappeared when the apostolic autographs were gone. What then do you make of the WCF at 1:8 where it says,

"*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"​
If the OT and NT in their original states were _*immediately inspired by God*_, and then *by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages*, what do you reckon was kept pure in all ages? What do you think "kept pure" means? Would it be the standard – the classic – definition of "pure"?

The issue of the Vaticanus ms is different; the CT editors since the late 1800s considered it the best, the "neutral", i.e., unadulterated, NT text (though more recently that infatuation has evaporated). But it clearly isn't. I would suppose you don't have a Bible you can hold in your hand and say this is the authentic, intact, infallible word of God. Or do you?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 5, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Richard, responding to your post 131 (and I note that you subscribe to the WCF), you seem to be saying that there are no inspired Scriptures extant today, and that they disappeared when the apostolic autographs were gone. When then do you make of the WCF at 1:8 where it says,
> 
> "*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"​
> If the OT and NT in their original states were _*immediately inspired by God*_, and then *by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages*, what to you reckon was kept pure in all ages? What do you think "kept pure" means? Would it be the standard – the classic – definition of "pure"?



The confession is talking about God's providential care in making sure that the text of the Bible survived through the centuries even though the autographa had long-since disappeared. 1.8 _doesn't_ say that "mediate inspiration" was a result of this process.

It would be interesting to know what the divines meant by "pure," in light of the fact that they didn't possess nearly the number of copies and parts of copies that we have today.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> The TR has undergone many editions--the idea that any one edition is flawless is untenable. However, some of us are convinced that the NA/USB texts are inferior to the traditional text.
> 
> However, you seem to be confusing the issues of textual criticism and translation--we were talking about the authority of the English translations stemming from them being a faithful representation of the Greek or Hebrew; what Greek text is to be preferred is a different matter.


I agree with your statement here that the reliable English translations are indeed faithful representations of the originals, but just saying that we have No copies off the originals left, and there is no translation without any mistakes or errors.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> If they can be distinguished, they are not "strictly synonymous," which was all that I said. This has been a veritable minefield in Biblical scholarship; precision is critical.


The Originals were fully Inerrant, as in no mistakes or errors within them period, while translations are an infallible witness to them, as they do represent the word of God to us now, but none of them are perfect.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> You miss the teees for the Forrest, Richard.
> 
> Let me ask it another way: is the word ‘the’ in Hebrew and Greek accurate to the original autographs and if so, is that word inspired in the translation?


We do not have the originals around to compare that to though.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Richard, responding to your post 131 (and I note that you subscribe to the WCF), you seem to be saying that there are no inspired Scriptures extant today, and that they disappeared when the apostolic autographs were gone. What then do you make of the WCF at 1:8 where it says,
> 
> "*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"​
> If the OT and NT in their original states were _*immediately inspired by God*_, and then *by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages*, what do you reckon was kept pure in all ages? What do you think "kept pure" means? Would it be the standard – the classic – definition of "pure"?
> ...


Our English translations are giving to us what God intended for us to have an authoritative text for doctrines and practices, but none of them are perfect.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

bookslover said:


> The confession is talking about God's providential care in making sure that the text of the Bible survived through the centuries even though the autographa had long-since disappeared. 1.8 _doesn't_ say that "mediate inspiration" was a result of this process.
> 
> It would be interesting to know what the divines meant by "pure," in light of the fact that they didn't possess nearly the number of copies and parts of copies that we have today.


Correct, as they did not seem to hold to mediate inspiration as carrying forward from the original languages texts into the English translations.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> This doesn't even make sense, David. Infallible and inerrant mean the same thing. Also, you have absolutely no proof that there are no translations which were copied from the original....none. You really think the Creator of all things who upholds all things would be so clumsy as to not make sure that his exact words weren't copied down from the originals? LOL! 2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...". He didn't say only the originals he said his scripture is.


There are no manuscripts that go all the way back to the originals, as those were the source texts for the translation themselves.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I agree with your statement here that the reliable English translations are indeed faithful representations of the originals, but just saying that we have No copies off the originals left, and there is no translation without any mistakes or errors.


Right. Neither the doctrine of providential preservation nor the doctrine of mediate inspiration would preclude any of what you've stated in this post. I really think you need to step back from trying to argue for a particular view, and try to understand what other people are saying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Right. Neither the doctrine of providential preservation nor the doctrine of mediate inspiration would preclude any of what you've stated in this post. I really think you need to step back from trying to argue for a particular view, and try to understand what other people are saying.


As long as we are not saying that either we have the Originals today, or that any English translation is perfect, I am fine with your suggestion.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 5, 2017)

David writes:



> We do not have the originals around to compare that to though.



So, in essence, we are flying on the seat of our pants; Can the translations save men? If so, they must have inspiration as how could the Holy Spirit use the word if it is not inspired?



> Our English translations are giving to us what God intended for us to have an authoritative text for doctrines and practices, but none of them are perfect.



No one ever said that they are perfect, but the imperfections still carry the overall inspiration that God intended when He commanded that the gospel be taken to every tribe, tongue and nations.



> Correct, as they did not seem to hold to mediate inspiration as carrying forward from the original languages texts into the English translations.



The above is speculation and is contra-biblical. Mediate inspiration is the rationale that the majority of translations, hold the word of God in the translations.



> There are no manuscripts that go all the way back to the originals, as those were the source texts for the translation themselves.



Then, it would follow then that nothing we do or read has any inspiration; this to include the preaching done every Lord's day. When the preacher claims 'this is the word of God', it is in fact, not the word of God (using your interpretation). No one believes this!



> As long as we are not saying that either we have the Originals today, or that any English translation is perfect, I am fine with your suggestion.



No one has made that claim in this discussion, anywhere. You are failing to read and process, apparently.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Originals were fully Inerrant, as in no mistakes or errors within them period, while translations are an infallible witness to them, as they do represent the word of God to us now, but none of them are perfect.



"Infallible" but "none of them are perfect" Hmmm. (Just thought I'd tease you a little.)


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> There are no manuscripts that go all the way back to the originals, as those were the source texts for the translation themselves.



1) Your Lack of proof: You have no proof that God did not have men make copies of the original text which were passed around to other churches of that time, and then handed down to other generations who eventually translated those copies. Just because no one has found the copies doesn't mean they didn't exist. I have proof that God did provide copies from the original text. 2 Timothy 3:16. 

2) Illogical reasoning: Your belief that there were no copies obtained from the original text places you in a predicament of having an untrustworthy Bible. The Bible you would have us accept as being infallible in its truths would have no original source from which it received its truths. How can you claim its infallibility if there are no original text from which our present Bible obtained its truths? 

3) Your Contradictions about God's character and your low esteem of his Word: You would have us accept God's omniscience and omnipotence of being capable of producing out of "thin air" a translation which is infallible, but you strip him of those very attributes when you claim he was incapable of ensuring copies of the original text. You force upon God's character mankind's inept attributes when you say his Word is infallible but errant. Mankind can be inerrant and errant at times because he is fallible. But God is infallible and therefore can never be errant. He is his Word which he gave to us. What is claimed in Scripture is what God claims as himself. Yet you would place upon that Word some errancy. 

4) Your limited understanding of translating languages: God is the one who created all languages. They not only differ in their words but also in their grammatical structures. The English language has words and sentence structures that the Greek and Hebrew language might not have much less use and vise versa. Does that make the English (or any other language) translation errant or does that make the English translation inerrant according to how God created the English language? Where the English translation might use "the" and the Greek or Hebrew language would not, deleting the usage of "the" from the English translation would actually make the English version wrong because that is not how God created the English language. 

5) Your inability to claim certainty of truth: an infallible but errant Bible rids you of any foundation on which you set your claims for absolute truths. You can and will be stripped of your claim to Biblical truths by unbelievers who will use your own words against you.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> 1) Your Lack of proof: You have no proof that God did not have men make copies of the original text which were passed around to other churches of that time, and then handed down to other generations who eventually translated those copies. Just because no one has found the copies doesn't mean they didn't exist. I have proof that God did provide copies from the original text. 2 Timothy 3:16.
> 
> 2) Illogical reasoning: Your belief that there were no copies obtained from the original text places you in a predicament of having an untrustworthy Bible. The Bible you would have us accept as being infallible in its truths would have no original source from which it received its truths. How can you claim its infallibility if there are no original text from which our present Bible obtained its truths?
> 
> ...


God preserved for us the originals in the sense of there being enough material still existing to have us compile and reconstruct what the original texts were, but there are NO textual experts that I am aware of that claim we have today the first copies of the originals still existing.
And the English translations derive authority from being done of the original language sources, but none of them are perfect, as only KJVO will claim that to be true.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

bookslover said:


> "Infallible" but "none of them are perfect" Hmmm. (Just thought I'd tease you a little.)


Only KJVO persons claim perfect in any English translation, as far as I know.


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God preserved for us the originals in the sense of there being enough material still existing to have us compile and reconstruct what the original texts were, but there are NO textual experts that I am aware of that claim we have today the first copies of the originals still existing.
> And the English translations derive authority from being done of the original language sources, but none of them are perfect, as only KJVO will claim that to be true.



Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true, David and Richard. You don't even vary your statements with proof or logical arguments. It's more like you're copying and pasting your info oblivious to the arguments and proof given to you...... you just keep repeating information everyone here has successfully shown to be untrue. You have been found wanting in your proof and logic. You bring no supporting evidence for your statements which are all conjectures. You fail.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 5, 2017)

To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised the mods are not putting a halt to the nonsense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Free Christian (Dec 5, 2017)

I use the 21st Century KJV and find it quite easy to read from without finding any problems with it. Am happy with this version.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 6, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised the mods are not putting a halt to the nonsense.



It's "nonsense" because I (and a couple of others) disagree with you. I see. Looks like you've got your arrogance knob turned up to 11 - again.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 6, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true, David and Richard. You don't even vary your statements with proof or logical arguments. It's more like you're copying and pasting your info oblivious to the arguments and proof given to you...... you just keep repeating information everyone here has successfully shown to be untrue. You have been found wanting in your proof and logic. You bring no supporting evidence for your statements which are all conjectures. You fail.



Wow. I've tried to remain calm in this thread. Now, I can't decide who's being more arrogant: you or Scott.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 6, 2017)

*Moderator Note:*
Thread closed while mods discuss next steps.

*Update*:
The thread will remain closed. The topic has been done often and members can search the topic out to review threads that were more specific to the content now being discussed, e.g., _mediate_ and _immediate_ inspiration.

In general it is a good idea to do some searching for topics one is interested in starting a new thread about to determine if their interests or questions have been treated in past forum threads.

That said, if it is taking you more than 20 minutes or so to find past discussions of a topic of interest, then starting a new thread may be the right step.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

