1. Where in any Bible does it say “only the originals” are inspired? Who invented this doctrine and “made it a fundamental of the faith”? Some of you folks are really hung up on this “original” issue. Do you believe that if you had the “originals” in your hands that you would get 110 volts of shock! Do you believe that if you had the real “originals” in your pulpit to preach from that your “baptism” count would go up?!?!? As God as my witness if I had the “originals” in my possession I would lock them up in a safe and preach out of a King James Bible and not bat and eye! Some of you folks would put them in a display case and bow down before them and then charge admission to finance your youth’s softball trip to Six Flags Over Texas!
There is no verse in any Bible that say “only the originals are inspired” – someone dreamed that one up – sounds good – just not scriptural.
The point is, the originals were inspired--to that, surely we all agree. To the extent that a translation departs from those inspired originals, it is not inspired. If we had the originals, all debate about important texts that are disputed would be over, because we would know whether they were really there or not, and thus whether the KJV and other translations are right in including/excluding them. Because God has preserved his word, we can be pretty sure about them anyway, and none of them affect a central doctrine of Christianity.
Now this next part some of you will scoff at – some will say that is old stuff and some of you might say, “That makes sense to me!”
2. In Tim. 3:16 it says: All scripture is given by inspiration…” If it is scripture it has to be inspired according to II Tim. 3:16. Don’t call what you have in your hands “scripture” unless you believe it to be inspired. The “Bible” says that if you want to call what you have “the scriptures” then it has to be inspired. If it is not inspired then it is not scripture.
To the extent that a translation accurately reflects Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16 applies. But should a translation distort what the originals said, it does not apply.
3. Look at II Tim. 3:15 – Timothy had the scriptures – according to vs. 16 there were inspired. Did Timothy have the originals? Of course not but what he had was inspired for the next verse says that the all scripture is inspired. Timothy had a copy of the scriptures and according to vs. 16 they were inspired and they were not the originals!
The “scriptures” just told us that something other than the originals could be inspired.
Actually, I think the point you are making is quite a leap there. Timothy was referring to Scripture in general, not referring to this issue at all. And besides that, we are not talking here about an exact copy of the original Scriptures. We are talking about a translation.
4. Can the AV1611 be inspired? Why not? Who or what says they couldn’t be – II Tim. 3:15,16 says more than just the originals can be scripture and thus be inspired.
Were the KJV translators inspired men? No.
Could what they have put down been inspired? Why not?
I do not believe they were inspired but what God had them put down was.
On what basis do you say that? Even should we grant that a translation is completely inspired, and accurately translates the text, etc., you still are left without a shadow of a foundation to base your assertion that the KJV is that translation.
Don’t you believe God runs things?
Don’t you believe that God works all things after the counsel of his own will – Eph. 1:11?
Don’t you believe God can control have his hands upon a 1611 Bible committee?
You mean you don’t take the providential approach to history? Do you mean that God just let’s man run things on his own?
Do you mean that you are putting your faith or lack of faith in the KJV translators, which were mere men?
I certainly believe that God works all things after the counsel of his will. That is not the point. You are saying that the KJV is inspired, but you have offered no defense for that statement. God has amazingly preserved his Word, but NOT ONLY in the KJV. What about the Geneva? Tyndale? Wycliffe?
THE 1611 TRANSLATORS WERE HOLY SCHOLARS AND HOLY MEN BUT MY FAITH IS IN THE GOD WHO CONTROLLED AND DIRECTED THE AFFAIRS OF THOSE MEN! No wonder why some folks keep using the translators as an excuse for faulty translating – your faith is in men and not the Providential hand of an all-powerful, all seeing, all-directing God!
Your thoughts?
God bless
Your argument does not follow here. I am not putting my faith in the KJV translators. I think they were fallible men. I put my faith in God that even though translations are made by faulty, though godly, men, I can still trust his Word because he has providentially preserved it.
You have failed to show
in any way that the KJV is indeed the "inspired translation." You have NO basis whatsoever for making a statement like that.
Joel
Author