Inspiration, Canonicity, KJV

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Except that there is no direct one to one translation that has ever been made form one language to another.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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"
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
Click to expand...


WCF ch 1:8 uses the term, 'immediate' in regards to the original autographs, which in turn would support 'mediate' inspiration.
 
KMK said:
then you would have to prove that the KJV is a completely foreign language to modern American English.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Scott Bushey said:
WCF ch 1:8 uses the term, 'immediate' in regards to the original autographs, which in turn would support 'mediate' inspiration.
Click to expand...

(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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Inspiration was just reserved to the originals, and any other viewpoint would be akin to the fallacy of KJVO.
 
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.
 
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 hisInstitutes 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).
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 hisInstitutes 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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Correct, as there is only general revelation from creation, and special through the sacred scriptures themselves, and only the originals themselves.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Dachaser said:
Good Translations today would be infallible, but none of them would be inspired, as that brings in the bad KJVO position.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Limited Inspiration
Replies
8
Views
7K
reformedmedia
R
A
  • Locked
KJV
Replies
18
Views
4K
Dachaser
D
Tyrese
  • Locked
KJV
Replies
16
Views
5K
reaganmarsh
reaganmarsh
PilgrimPastor
  • Locked
KJV?
2
Replies
47
Views
13K
Thomas2007
T
I
  • Locked
KJV only
2
Replies
55
Views
19K
PointyHaired Calvinist
PointyHaired Calvinist
Back
Top