The KJV is divinely inspired but has man's errors.
Oh my goodness, this isn't going to be a KJV only type thing, is it?
The KJV is NOT divinely inspired, but the Word of God is, in it's original languages.
It is inspired as far as it accurately translates the original, which can be said of all versions. The KJV is no more divinely inspired than the others which are accurately translated.
So, would you say that Sinaticus or Vaticanus are inspired? BTW I tend to agree with your answer. What I'm getting at is can the reason for the birth of so many cults be traced back to man's errors in The Bible?
So, would you say that Sinaticus or Vaticanus are inspired? BTW I tend to agree with your answer. What I'm getting at is can the reason for the birth of so many cults be traced back to man's errors in The Bible?
Blessings: Pete <><
The fact is we do not have the original autographs and have to use the Greek manuscripts that are available. All manuscripts are copies of copies of copies of the original. The Sinaticus and the Vaticanus are two of several families of manuscripts and through comparison scholars are able to provide an accurate copy of the original text which can be used for translation into other languages.
Ultimately the reason for the birth of so many cults can be traced back to Satan. Satan is a master of disguise and masquerades as an angel of righteousness. All of the cults and false religions find their origin in his twisted mind.
Certainly one of the ways in which he deceives people is through faulty translations of the Bible. The New World Translation is one such translation used by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
You didn't ask me, but my answer would be no, of course not.
2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
One can only say the autographs are without error because one has access to the autographs in the apographs. Whatever may be assumed from the writings of older divines can only be assumed because they affirmed an infallible Word in their possession. To speak of a non-existent thing as being infallible is meaningless.The KJV is divinely inspired but has man's errors.
One can only say the autographs are without error because one has access to the autographs in the apographs. Whatever may be assumed from the writings of older divines can only be assumed because they affirmed an infallible Word in their possession. To speak of a non-existent thing as being infallible is meaningless.
The main point is that modern textual criticism is seeking a text which does not exist -- a phantom. It begins with a presupposition that is unreformed, adopts evidential methods that are unscientific, and ends in a quest that is unrealistic.
It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the 'original and authentic text' of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (i. e., non-scribal) errors rests on an examination of apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.
You would do well to consider Warfield:
Warfield’s Two Premises:
We are not asked to take a leap of faith in believing the Bible to be the word of God, or even to believe that it is historically reliable; we have evidence that this is the case. I enlist on my behalf that towering figure of Reformed biblical scholarship, Benjamin B. Warfield. In his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been all but forgotten by today's evangelicals.
Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E. J. Young's deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great, early articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired. This may seem shocking to some in the evangelical camp, but one can hardly claim that Warfield was soft on bibliological convictions! Let me prove my point with a lengthy quotation from his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), p. 174:
"Now if this doctrine is to be assailed on critical grounds, it is very clear that, first of all, criticism must be required to proceed against the evidence on which it is based. This evidence, it is obvious, is twofold. First, there is the exegetical evidence that the doctrine held and taught by the Church is the doctrine held and taught by the Biblical writers themselves. And secondly, there is the whole mass of evidence-internal and external, objective and subjective, historical and philosophical, human and divine-which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as doctrinal guides. If they are trustworthy teachers of doctrine and if they held and taught this doctrine, then this doctrine is true, and is to be accepted and acted upon as true by us all. In that case, any objections brought against the doctrine from other spheres of inquiry are inoperative; it being a settled logical principle that so long as the proper evidence by which a proposition is established remains unrefuted, all so-called objections brought against it pass out of the category of objections to its truth into the category of difficulties to be adjusted to it. If criticism is to assail this doctrine, therefore, it must proceed against and fairly overcome one or the other element of its proper proof. It must either show that this doctrine is not the doctrine of the Biblical writers, or else it must show that the Biblical writers are not trustworthy as doctrinal guides."
The problem with the modern conception is that the translation is not truly recognized as the Word of God. Traditional Presbyterians used to distinguish between the words and the sense of Scripture: the words in the original alone are inspired, but the inspiration is carried over into the sense as it is accurately conveyed in the translation. If this were truly believed, there would not be such haste to alter the Word of God.
AMR
Thank you for that AMR. I agree that only the original is inspired. However, the KJV (and no, I'm not a KJV onlyist) has been the version that has been used more than any other since its publication and I think has been preserved and blessed by God. Would you agree?
I think the words in the original alone are inspired, but the inspiration is carried over into the sense as it is accurately conveyed in the KJV translation.
When we approach holy Scripture we must make a choice -- we either stand to be judged by the Word of God, or we sit in judgement upon it? When a person takes up different versions of Scripture which contradict each other, the reader is obliged to discriminate between the two. Discrimination is an act of judgement. When two contradictory versions of Scripture are permitted, the reader is ipso facto required to sit in judgement on holy Scripture, and thereby excuses himself from the authority of the Word of God.
The Bible calls upon believers to "hear the Word of the Lord" -- to hear, not to raise critical questions. Accordingly, the early church prefaced the public reading of holy Scripture with the summons to hear the Word of the Lord. Likewise, reformed piety taught that "the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God" (Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 157). It is contrary to reformed piety to allow two different translations which contradict each other, and to esteem them both as the Word of God.
Concerning the question as to the priority of translation or confession -- if we follow the path of the enlightenment, which lives in the dreamy world of uncorrupted human reason, follows the myth of neutrality, and insists upon the right of private judgement, then translation naturally comes first. On the other hand, if we follow the path of Christian discipleship, which acknowledges the noetic effects of the fall, the absolute necessity of spiritual illumination, and the constant requirement to engage in self-denial, then confession must be placed in the forefront.
When we speak of the 'original manuscripts' we must do so understanding that God did not decide to preserve them as such. In other words, there is no such thing as 'original manuscript preservation' in the sense that we can pick up the original manuscripts to judge the authenticity of a particular passage.
So the first thing we must do is see how God preserved the Scriptures and then work forward based on that foundation. As we look to God's word to find out how He chose to preserve Scripture we find...
Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
So we see from Scripture that God has chosen to preserve His word not by keeping the originals intact, but rather through the Church. As we consider this idea of ecclesiastical preservation it becomes obvious that Church history and Church use become very important in determining the preserved word of God.
The only area that even could have preserved Scripture throughout the years was the Byzantine area because the Western Church adopted Latin as their official language (thus no longer copying Greek texts), and the Alexandrian area had fallen to Islam early on (thus no longer copying any Bible texts).
AMR
The KJV is divinely inspired but has man's errors.
Blessings: Pete <><
In view of your comments, what then is your opinion of textual criticism?
Blessings: Pete <><
I think the words in the original alone are inspired,
AMR