Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is The Bible divinely inspired or not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theology Club: Is The Bible divinely inspired or not?

    The KJV is divinely inspired but has man's errors.


    Blessings: Pete <><

  • #2
    Originally posted by revpete View Post
    The KJV is divinely inspired but has man's errors.
    The inspiration was to the original writers.

    The texts available to us today are not the originals, but Christ through his Spirit will guide us in our understanding to the extent we have ears to hear and are willing to do our homework.

    God never said the kingdom is the easy road.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The 5 solas View Post
        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?


        Blessings: Pete <><

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by revpete View Post
          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?
          You didn't ask me, but my answer would be no, of course not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by revpete View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The 5 solas View Post
              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.

              Yes, I would of course it's the devil. The JWs founder Charles Russell was the son of a Methodist minister (unless I'm mixing him up with someone else) and he became disgruntled with parts of The Bible so maybe it could be true of others.


              Blessings: Pete <><

              Comment


              • #8
                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:
                He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

                Jim Elliot

                Comment


                • #9
                  All scripture is Elohim spirited and in every generation the Holy Spirit enlivens the eternal word in the election of grace unto life. Unto the wicked the killing letter does its work and the law condemns the sinner.
                  I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

                  "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

                  I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
                  A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
                  If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

                  Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

                  I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jamie View Post
                    You didn't ask me, but my answer would be no, of course not.

                    Too right bro lol


                    Blessings: Pete <><

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
                      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:
                      That's good enough for me.
                      Eph 2:8 For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift --
                      Eph 2:9 not from works, so that no one can boast.
                      Eph 2:10 For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them. [HCSB]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This response is divinely inspired and you can prove it by quoting what I just typed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by revpete View Post
                          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
                          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                          Do you confess?
                          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                          AMR's Randomata Blog
                          Learn Reformed Doctrine
                          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                          The best TOL Social Group: here.
                          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                          Why?


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            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?


                            Blessings: Pete <><

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Tynedale, that glorious saint, the KJ is heavily reliant on Tynedale. It is a little softer in it's theology than the KJ.

                              It is true this too. The KJ kept the revisers in check, the KJ [Tynedale] was so high in everybody's affection that the revisers did not dare to tinker too much even though they used different texts.
                              One lavished upon in the Beloved
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X