Page

1

IS THE BIBLE THE WORD OF GOD

THE BOOK YOU HOLD IN YOUR HAND

IS IT THE WORD OF GOD OR GOD’S WORD

Charles e Whisnant, March 11, 2012 #2012.1.11

WHAT CAUSES A PERSON TO DESIRE TO KNOW GOD’S WORD REALLY?

WHAT WOULD CAUSE A PERSON TO USE TRANSLATIONS?

Once heard a dear old Salvationist soldier say, in a discussion regarding which Bible translation is best to use, “I use the King James Version. If it was good enough for Jesus to read, it’s good enough for me.”

People often ask me, “Which translation is best?” Or they would say “What Bible should I be reading?” I used to respond, “The King James of course.” I would say, “Why do you need another Bible if you have the good old KJV?” I didn’t think it was an translation.

For us Baptist we always believed there was only one church: the Baptist Church, and that had to be an Independent Baptist Church. It was a shock when I found out there were many kinds of Baptist Churches.

Page

2

For that matter most of us believe there was only one Bible and that was the KJV. And we believed it was not a translation but the original copy of the original bible.

For many of us to even have another copy of the Bible in our possession was a sin. We would not dare read another kind of Bible nor go to another kind of Baptist Church.

While in Seminary I don’t remember ever hearing about another translation of the Bible. I only believed there was one Bible and that was the good old KJV.

SO WHEN DID YOU GET OVER THAT IDEA THAT THE KJV WAS NOT THE ONLY BIBLE?

I have argued that 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to “All Scripture,” not just the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and that it has nothing to do with how Scripture was written, but has everything to do with how God speaks to us through Scripture to make it profitable, meaningful, and inspiring in our lives.

THE QUESITON SHOULD BE: WHY DID YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND? WHAT CAUSED YOU TO CHANGE YOUR MIND?” Don’t you feel guilty by change your mind?

When I learned that Jesus didn’t read from the KJV. Or did Peter, James and John, nor Paul! That was a shock for sure.

When I learned that the KJV was a translation I was shocked. Really.

When I learned that the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew? Not English?

Page

3

SHOULD THEN SHOULD WE FEEL GUILTY IN HAVING ANOTHER KIND OF BIBLE IN OUR HOME?

SO WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT TRANSLATIONS ARE OKAY TO READ?

1A WHEN A PERSON HAS A DESIRE TO KNOW GOD’S WORD REALLY?

Bible Translations are inspiring in the sense they help us get a better understanding of what we are reading.

2A WHEN I UNDERSTOOD THAT I WAS TO UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE

Well I believed we were to read the bible, and not necessary understand the Bible as we were reading it. I have read the Bible since 1960 and I admit that I didn’t understand most of what the bible was meant to mean.

When I learned thatt 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to “All Scripture,” not just the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and that it has nothing to do with how Scripture was written, but has everything to do with how God speaks to us through Scripture to make it profitable, meaningful, and inspiring in our lives.

So I went to Bible College, and Seminary, and listen to my Dad preach, and my Mom teach Sunday School. I wanted to know what the Bible said. I listen to preachers and teachers on Radio. Charles Fuller, Oliver B. Greene, M.R. Dehaan, and many others when I was in my early teens.

I never did have Direct Divine Inspiration! Where I had the immediate on the spot understanding of the chapter and verse I was reading.

3A WHEN I REALIZED THAT THE BIBLE WAS GOD’S WORD AND GOD WANTED US TO KNOW HIM AND LEARN OF HIM AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE READING.

4A WHEN LEARING ABOUT THE PROCESS OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS.

And in this series I have tried to give you an understanding of what translation are. When I learned that the KJV was a translation from another translation which was from another translation.

I have tried to give you a little understanding of the process that translators have to do in order to translate the Bible in to our language form the Greek and Hebrew.

Page

4

5A WHEN LEARNING THERE WERE OTHERS WHO UNDERSTOOD THE MEANING OF THE BIBLE.

When I got over the idea that studying for a sermon was more than just praying and asking the Holy Spirit to give me a sermon by divine inspiration on the spot and it was okay to learn by preparation, and a little sweat and hard work.

When I learned that John MacArthur, who preached and taught from the KJV for over 30 years than he switched to the NASV. I asked why? He said so it would be easier for the people to understand the words in the Bible.

6A AND HOW THEY WERE LEARNING THEMSELVES.

When I learned that there were Bible tools, there were technological tools. There was a method in which you could apply in order to gain knowledge of the subject at hand.

Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament Fritz Rienecker/Cleon Rogers and about 100 more such tools .

6A WHEN LEARNING TO GET OVER THE ABUSE OF FELLOW PREACHERS ABOUT MY DESIRE TO LEARN THE WORD OF GOD FROM OTHER NON BAPTIST PASTORS, AND LEARN FROM STUDYING THE WORD.

7A WHEN I REALIZED THAT AS A PASTOR-TEACHER ONE SHOULD PREACH AND TEACH EXPOSITORY. THAT IS TO EXPLAIN TO THE PEOPLE WHAT THE BIBLE SAID, BOOK BY BOOK, CHAPTER BY CHAPTER, VERSE BY VERSE, AND YES WORD BY WORD,

How was that going to happen if one didn’t know himself!

8A WHEN LEARNING THAT ALL THE RHETORIC ABOUT TRANSLATIONS WAS FASLE

True, 90% of what I heard about all the bible translations were 90% false. Misinformation. The number of false statements about other translations!

1B KJV advocates believe that the translators were directed by the Holy Spirit to make the correct choice between two variations in the Greek or Hebrew text

1C FALSE: Here are a number of marginal readings that indicate alternate manuscript readings. This is different from two English readings from identical manuscripts.

The fact that the translators placed into the margin alternate manuscript readings PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT that they WERE NOT GUIDED by the Holy Spirit as to which one of the two readings were correct.

Page

5

There are 13 different places in the original 1611 edition of the KJV where the translators give alternate manuscript readings.

The images on the right are from the original 1611 edition KJV. Few have ever seen it and are unaware that the original edition, like "modern versions" signal the reader of alternate readings in the underlying Greek manuscripts. If the KJV translators were inspired in their work... they didn't know it.

Ezra 10:402C If the KJV was INSPIRTED by thi Holy Spirit in 1611, why was there four revision since. The last one was in 17693C The orginial KJV did not reject the apocrypha in the original 1611 version.

LET ME JUST FOOTNOTE QUESITONS WE NEED TO ASK ABOUT THE FALSE CLAIMS BY THE KJV ONLY FOLKS:ii

9A WHEN LEARING TO MY SURPISE THAT THE KJV WAS A TRANSLATION IN THE FIRST PLACE

To my surprise the KJV translators used the Wycliffe, and Bishops translations.

Good Translation, But Nothing More(FOOTNOTE}

Page

6

10A WHEN THE WORD BIBLE WAS USED “I HAVE A BIBLE”:”THE IDEA WAS IT MUST BE A KJV OR IT IS NOT THE BIBLE. When I realize that a Bible doesn’t mean it is a KJV only. Shocked by that news.

There are really different types of Bible that are good.iii

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE BIBLE YOU HOLD IN YOUR HAND IS THE WORD OF GOD AND IT MIGHT BE A NIV, NASV, ESV OR RSV OR …..?

Bible translations are actually a practical application of the truth Paul was presenting in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Bible Translations are one of the ways God illuminates Scripture to us. Translations are one of the ways God makes Scripture inspire us to believe differently, act differently, view life differently.

Page

7

Translations are inspirational. Translations can help the reader, maybe the “light comes one” in the mind . Translations makes the words easier to understand. Translations could also help provide the reader with knowledge or with intellectual or spiritual enlightenment.

Which translations? Many of them. Each one is helpful in its own way for helping us understand what was originally written in Scripture.  Just as a sermon, a book about the bible or a blog can help us understand the mind and heart of God as revealed in Scripture, so also can a translation.

Do we need Greek and Hebrew scholars? Of course.. Bible scholars are one of the links in the chain by which God makes All Scripture stimulating and profitable for each and every one of us.

The key phrase of this verse is most often translated as following:

All Scripture is inspired…

Seems pretty clear, right? So I guess that settles it. Scripture must be inspired.

Except that it’s not quite that easy.

The phrase is notoriously difficult to translate, and even more difficult to understand.

What would you say if I formed a doctrine based on one hard-to-translate word which is found only one time in the entire Bible?

Page

8

In other words, what if I formed an entire doctrine not only from just one verse in the Bible, but from

9 (its our 11th lesson March 11, 2012

The Scriptures — Inspired or Expired?

“That Book in Your Hand”The first of my sermons on Bibliology (the study of what the Scriptures are, and how they came to us) dealt with the inspiration of the Scriptures, from II Timothy 3:16

This series is more academic/technical than my usual writing, and some readers may be wondering why, and why I have spent so much time on the Greek word theopneustos (“given by inspiration of God”).  This post may provide some explanation.

An unfortunate teaching began in the 1880s and has spread through the theology department of seminaries and Christian universities and colleges, whether reformed, evangelical, or Christian fundamentalist. 

Most pastors with theological training have heard this teaching, and many have been influenced by it.  It is essentially a problem of definitions, but it can cause confusion and have significant pastoral ramifications.

Defining theopneustos God breathed the Scriptures into existence and He breathed life into the

Scriptures.  They are divine in origin and divine in nature, a living, life-giving, and life-changing Book.

The act by which God gave the Scriptures (historically called “immediate inspiration”) is not the full meaning of theopneustos.  The meaning goes beyond etymology, and includes the connotations of the breath of God.   The   focus is   not primarily on the divine origin of the Bible, but on the   divine nature resulting from that divine origin.

This divine nature or quality is present in an accurate copy.  The nature of the Scriptures resides in the words and concepts, not in paper and ink.  Thus, a completely accurate copy is as fully inspired as the original, even though it was not “immediately inspired.”

This living and life-giving nature is present in translations.  Thus, the nations can receive life through the Scriptures (Romans 16:25-27).  Peter can tell Greek readers that their Old Testament translation gives them a “sure word of prophecy” (II Peter 1:19).  Paul can tell Timothy to “preach the Word” from his Greek translation of the Old Testament because it is theopneustos and profitable.  Just as Timothy’s imperfect but reasonably accurate translation was theopneustos, so any reasonably accurate translation in any language is inspired today.  Neither Timothy’s translation nor ours were “immediately inspired.”

An Unfortunate Teaching

Page

9

The Latin root ”spiro” from which ”inspiration” is derived means ”breathe.” 

We still see this root in words like “respiratory.”  ”Inspire” (though in modern English it has acquired other connotations) meant “breathe into,” while “ex-spire / expire” (which also now has other meanings) meant “breathe out.”

For centuries, theopneustos was understood to refer to both the Divine origin (historical) AND the Divine nature (current) of the Scriptures.  We see this in both the history of translations and in theological writing.  (If you have read my prior posts but not the summary page linked above, this is discussed near the bottom.)   Thus, theopneustos was translated with some form of the expression “inspired by God” (breathed into) in every major translation until 1970.

Benjamin B. Warfield — A Word Redefined

In the late 19th century, Benjamin Warfield (eventually of Princeton Theological Seminary) changed the focus.  Writing in 1881 (with A.A. Hodge), Warfield responded to heretical challenges to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.  However, as he focused on the theological problem, he redefined theopneustos (inspiration) to mean ”immediate inspiration.”

Warfield specifically said he was narrowing the definition, and suggested his technical definition was narrower than Biblical usage (citations and analysis of some of his teaching on this page: Warfield’s Redefinition of Inspiration). CEW I have downloaded this paper in the attachment alone with this lesson.

For Warfield, “inspired” became no longer what “is,” a statement about the current nature of Scripture, but only what “was,” a statement about how God gave the Scriptures, their origin.  He taught that the Scriptures were ”breathed-out” (ex-spired) rather than ”breathed-into” (inspired), and that only the original autographs were inspired (past tense rather than the Biblical present tense).

Warfield’s Followers

Warfield was a brilliant theologian and writer, and his teaching “swept the field,” so to speak.  Some, like Arthur Pink, still held to the historic view of inspiration, but the vast majority of theologians and theological seminaries followed Warfield’s redefinition of inspiration.

Gleason Archer:

Thus, another great scholar of more recent times, Gleason Archer, in his Survey of Old

This word is really to be rendered ‘breathed out by God’ rather than ’breathed into by God.’  The emphasis is upon the divine origin of the inscripturated revelation itself rather than upon a special quality infused into the words of Scripture.

Archer follows Warfield, changing “inspired” to “ex-spired,” a reference only to the divine origin of the Bible.  The New International Version, in the 1970s, abandoned “inspiration” and translated, “All Scripture is God-breathed,” based solely on etymology.  The English Standard Version went further: ”All Scripture is breathed out by God” (emphasis mine), moving past etymology to base translation on a theological redefinition from the 1880s.

Warfield’s limitation of inspiration to the original autographs alone has been widely adopted.  Another evangelical theologian, Greg Bahnsen wrote:

Page

10

Testament Introduction wrote of theopneustos: Autographs, Amanuenses and Restricted Inspiration

By Greg L. Bahnsen http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt006.htm

Therefore, inspiration may be applied legitimately only to the autographs of Scripture.

Even a superb school like Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary says at the beginning of a document on their website (more on this document later — it improves further down):

The biblical and historic fundamentalist view on the inspiration of the Scripture is that only the original manuscripts are God-breathed and therefore inerrant (2 Tim 3:16).

These are only representative — if you search the Internet for “inspiration” and “autographs” you will find hundreds of similar statements.  Many who believe in inspiration today limit it to the originals.  Copies, even accurate ones, are not inspired by God at all, and a translation certainly isn’t inspired. 

Inspiration has Expired

“That Book in Your Hand”, by this teaching, is not inspired, not given by inspiration of God. 

Since we don’t have the original manuscripts, and since inspiration is limited to those original autographs, “inspired” has not only been changed to “expired”, inspiration itself has expired — it ceased to exist when the original autographs ceased to exist.  You do not have an inspired Bible, and you never will.  No one does.  That is the harsh statement of the theological consensus that follows Warfield’s redefinition of inspiration.

Where the Teaching is Right — and Where it is Wrong

Warfield’s teaching, followed so widely today, is correct in recognising the unique miraculous act of God in the original giving of the Scriptures (immediate inspiration, sometimes called “inscripturation”).  Inspiration (theopneustos) by etymology clearly has some reference to immediate inspiration, the divine origin of the Scriptures, and there is no error in drawing on that fact.  Furthermore, immediate inspiration is properly limited to the original autographs.

The error is in tearing a Biblical word away from its Scriptural usage and giving it a narrow technical definition.  Paul was not writing only about immediate inspiration when he penned theopneustos.  He was writing about the Book Timothy was to preach, which could not have been original autographs in Greek-speaking Ephesus.

Derived Inspiration?

Bahnsen elsewhere at least momentarily backed away from the error, saying of a modern translation:

The Inerrancy of the Autographa

By Greg L. Bahnsen

Page

11

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt042.htm

…but it is still the very Word of God, inspired and inerrant – to the degree that it reflects the original work of God, which… is a qualification that is very seldom in need of being stated.

He said that his translation is inspired in a qualified way (and the qualification is so obvious it rarely needs stated).  This is much better, much closer to Biblical usage — where no qualification was stated. 

Others have spoken of copies and translations (“That Book in Your Hand”) as being inspired in a derived sense, deriving their inspiration from their faithfulness to the original.  The Detroit Baptist statement I cited above says later:

All other texts, copies, reproductions, translations, and versions partake of inspiration in an indirect, linear fashion from previous copies and translations to the extent that they reproduce the text of the original manuscripts.

This is far superior to the stark opening statement I cited previously, affirming what one of my professors (and many other theologians) adamantly denied.  It admits Book-in-hand inspiration (in some sense), which is more than many are willing to do.  It is accurate in recognizing that the inspiration of copies and translations is dependent on fidelity to the original – but it still misses the point to an extent.

Those who speak of “derived” or “indirect” inspiration tend to treat it almost as an after-thought, as if the thing that really matters is the theological discussion of the act of immediate inspiration.  They have it backwards. 

To the pastor and teacher, to the man in the pew, and to the professional theologican in his spiritual life, for that matter, immediate inspiration is of no value at all unless the divine nature of the Scriptures lives on.   The focus is wrong, and far from Paul’s focus.

We should not minimize what Paul is saying by qualifying or using terms like “derived” or “indirect.”  Paul was talking about Timothy’s Greek translation when he said it is theopneustos — and he simply didn’t insert “derived” or “indirect” to lessen the force of his statement.  We shouldn’t, either.

Those who speak of “derived” inspiration are still primarily talking about the origin (immediate inspiration) of the Scriptures.  They are using a definition of inspiration that was adopted for theological controversies, rather than one determined by Paul’s actual usage of the word.  That definition drives them to use words that diminish the impact of the message of II Timothy 3:16 for believers who hold a divine Book in their hands.

Heretics and Apostates?

A few have charged Warfield (and those who followed in his footsteps) with heresy or apostasy.  This is serious error, in both fact and spirit.  The mistake discussed here is a problem of definition, not apostasy or heresy, and to level such charges is untrue and uncharitable.  Warfield’s statements about “inspiration” are entirely true of “immediate inspiration,” and he provided an immense service to God’s people.  His work should be appreciated, even if it isn’t infallible.

Does it Matter?

Truth always matters, of course, but this has pastoral implications.  If I preach Warfield’s teaching on inspiration as the whole meaning of theopneustos, I have stolen II Timothy 3:16 from the people in our church.  I merely describe something that happened historically, rather than affirming their faith in “That Book in Your Hand.”

Page

12

Paul’s entire purpose was to affirm the value of Timothy’s Book-in-hand.  He didn’t include the “only in the originals” caveat that is usually included today.  It simply isn’t there in II Timothy 3:16 — and if I were to teach it, it would weaken, rather than strengthen, the hearers’ faith in ”That Book in Their Hands.”

God’s people have been taught by His Spirit to recognize the Scriptures as a Book that is  divine in nature as well as origin.  When we redefine “inspired” we are effectively teaching, whether we mean to or not, that their Book-in-hand is not divine — it isn’t inspired, only the originals are.   Their Book is merely man’s best effort, copying and translating through the centuries, to try to give them something that approximates the original inspired text.

Can anyone think, reading II Timothy 3:10-4:8, that this is really what Paul intended to convey — that God did something really good in the past, but we don’t have it any longer?  What God did in inspiration only applies to the originals, Timothy, certainly not to your copies and translations.  Can anyone read that Scripture passage and think that is really the force of what Paul meant to teach?  Too many of our theologians have gone astray, turning a passage affirming your Book-in-hand into a teaching that casts doubts about that Book.

What Paul Intended

Arthur Pink:

The word “inspire” signifies to in-breathe, and breath is both the means and evidence of life; for as soon as a person ceases to breathe he is dead. The Word of God, then, is vitalized by the very life of God, and therefore it is a living Book. Men’s books are like themselves—dying creatures; but God’s Book is like Himself—it “lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23).

And again:

The Holy Scriptures not only were “inspired of God,” but they are so now. They come as really and as truly God’s Word to us, as they did unto those to whom they were first addressed. In substantiation of what I have just said, it is striking to note “Therefore as the Holy Spirit says, Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Heb. 3:7, 8); and again, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says (not “said”) unto the churches” (Rev. 2:7). (emphasis mine)

Arthur Pink was correct when he said that in 1936, and it is true today.  Thus Christians have believed through the centuries.  Few modern theologians would say it so directly, but there are some.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/25/25-4/25-4-pp479-487_JETS.pdf CEW I have printed this by Goodrick

Let’s Put 2 Timothy 3:16 Back in the Bible

Edwards W. Goodrick

Modern preoccupation with the no-longer-extant autographs too often neglects the very real and pragmatic plight of present-day Christians who desperately wish that the custodians of Biblical inspiration would give them some inclination as to the authority of their Bible, the one they hold in their hands.  Is it or is it not the Word of God?  Is it inspired or is it not?

Goodrick’s concluding words:

Page

13

…one should hardly enlist 2 Tim 3:16-17 to support the pristine character of the autographs.  Rather, he should exploit it to the full to demonstrate how valuable the God-breathed Scriptures are.   And this, after all, is more important.

I would not say Goodrick gets everything right, but he is entirely correct about the purpose of Paul’s writing.  This is what theopneustos means, in context.

Theologians should return to the term “immediate inspiration,” or perhaps use ”inspired inscripturation.”  They should not use theopneustos, “given by inspiration of God,” to describe only the origin of Scripture.  It is a Biblical word, and should be used in keeping with its Biblical context and usage.

However, professional theologians are not the “custodians of Biblical inspiration.”  That title belongs to the church (I Timothy 3:15), taught and led by pastors.  We use and appreciate the work of theologians, but pastors teach in the church the inspired Word to men, women, and children.  Our church, one “custodian of Biblical inspiration,” teaches thus:

The Bible in your hand is inspired, “given by inspiration of God.”  The word theopneustos belongs to you when you read the Bible, to your pastor when he preaches it, and to all of us as we live it.  “That Book in Your Hand” came from God, and it is and will continue to be a God-thing in character and quality, God-breathed, divine in nature.  Living, life-giving, and life-changing, we read it, study it, believe it, and obey it. 

ADDITIONAL STUDY ON THE TRANSLATION OF THE WORD

theopneustos

A second translation issue is that the word theopneustos is an adjective, and so there is some question as to where in the verse to put the adjective, and how the adjective is being used.

As you probably know form English, there are numerous ways of using adjectives. It gets rather complex, but there are three main uses of adjectives. They can be used as adverbs, nouns, or to modify a noun. I am not going to try to explain all three, but there are translations of 2 Timothy 3:16 which reflect all three different uses of the adjective (See Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace, pp. 291-314). I will point out some of these below.

Thirdly, there is the issue of the word “all.” This is the Greek word, pasa, which can also be translated “every.” So is Paul referring to all Scripture as in “Scripture in it’s entirety” or every Scripture as in “each, individual passage, verse, sentence, and word”?

Page

14

Finally, there are translation issues with the word “Scripture” itself. The word is graphē which literally means “a writing” (singular). What “writing” is Paul referring to? In the immediately preceding verse (2 Tim 3:15), Paul has used the word grammata, which also means “writings.” Are the two synonymous or is Paul referring to something different with each word?

So, in the space of just three Greek words, we have four serious translation issues:

1. What does the word theopneustos mean?2. As an adjective, how is it being used?3. How should we understand pasa in relation to Scripture?4. What is Paul referring to when he uses the word graphē?

Various Translations of 2 Timothy 3:16

Below are some of the ways the verse has been translated, with a few notes of my own following each translation, which explain what the translators seems to have been trying to say

1. NAS / NLT / NRS – All Scripture is inspired by God

These translations seem to indicate a belief that Scripture in it’s entirety is inspired.

2. NIV – All Scripture is God-breathed

The NIV has translated theopneustos more literally.

3. KJV / NKJ – All Scripture is given by inspiration of God

It is interesting that the KJV and the NKJ add the phrase “given by.” It seems the translators were trying place extra emphasis on the divine origin of Scripture.

4. NET – Every Scripture is inspired by God

The NET translators apparently wanted to clarify that it is not just Scripture in it’s entirety that is inspired, but every individual part of Scripture as well.

5. ESV – Every Scripture is breathed out by God

The ESV also want to emphasize that individual Scriptures are inspired as well, and also tries to clarify that each Scripture was breathed out by God. Maybe they believed it was spoken by God?

Page

15

6. ASV – Every Scripture inspired of God

Here is an example of a translation that seems to imply that some Scripture might not be inspired, and therefore, the uninspired Scriptures are not profitable. But how to know which is which?

7. NEB – Every inspired Scripture

As with the ASV, this translation seems to indicate that not all Scriptures are inspired.

8. YLT – Every writing is God-breathed

Here is an example of a translation that used “writing” instead of “Scripture” and also goes with “God-breathed.” The translator leaves it up to the reader to determine which writings are in view, and what “God-breathed” means.

Definition of Inspiration of Scripture http://www.tillhecomes.org/2-timothy-3_16/

(Get on your thinking hats). The formal definition of inspiration is:

That work of the Holy Spirit in guiding human authors to compose and record through their personalities God’s selected message without error in the words of the original documents.

Another popular definition is:

God superintending human authors so that, using their own personalities, they composed and recorded without error his message in the words of the original manuscripts.

Meaning of “Inspiration”

The phrase “Inspiration of Scripture” comes primarily from 2 Timothy 3:16 which says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”

The English word “inspiration” comes from the Latin inspirate which is a translation of the Greek word theopneustos. The most literal translation of theopneustos might be “God-breathed.”

Explanation of Inspiration of Scripture

Page

16

Aside from 2 Timothy 3:16, another key text is 2 Peter 1:21 which indicates that men of God were moved, carried, or driven by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture.

Many also use 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 to defend Inspiration, which talks about expressing spiritual truths with spiritual words taught not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit of God.

The authors were not passive instruments, mechanically recording what God dictated, but the Spirit used their personalities and individuality in the process of writing Scripture. This is why different books of the Bible which are written by different authors have different tones, vocabularies, thought patterns, and sentence structure.

Note that some of the authors (such as Jeremiah and Paul) used an amenuensis (a secretory, or scribe) to record what the words they spoke (cf. Rom 16:22; Gal 6:11).

Extent of Inspiration of Scripture

Inspiration extends only to the written words of the Bible. It refers not only to the Bible as a whole, but to every sentence, word, and even down to the individual letters (cf. Matt 5:18; Gal 3:16).

Inspiration only applies to the original manuscripts which were penned by the original authors. No Greek or Hebrew text that exists today, nor any English translation is inspired.

Importance of Inspiration of Scripture

If we are to follow the instruction of Jesus in living according to every word of God (Matt 4:4), we need to know with certainty and accuracy what the words of God are.

Since our daily decisions and actions as followers of Jesus depend on the meaning and application of individual words of Scripture, it is necessary to know that the words themselves are also inspired.

In English, it looks like this:All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching for reproof

for correctionfor training in righteousness

The thing I noticed when laying it out this way is that the verse has three pairs of words. One: “Teaching” is paired with “training” and speaks of positive instruction (what to do),

Second: while “reproof” is paired with “correction” and refers to negative instruction (what not to do). These two sets of words are parallel, meaning that each is a synonym of the other.

Third: pair of words are “God-breathed” and “profitable.” Since the other two sets of words are parallel, it seems likely that this third set is also parallel. They are synonyms. In other words, “profitable” is a synonym for “God-breathed.”

Page

17

Most translations seem to imply that “God-breathed” refers to the source or origin of Scripture (where it came from and how we got it) and “profitable” refers to the purpose and usefulness of Scripture.

But there is a more important thought in this verse. Not only was the word of God at the moment inspired, but there is the idea that the Word of God is still being inspired when we read the Word of God.

The texts is saying that the Word of God is useful in our lives. Yes God inspired the authors as they were writing, but God through the Word is still inspiring us and they the Words are useful full for us today.

With this in mind, Ttranslating theopneustos to more accurately reflect this, and since pneustos can be translated as “wind, breath, or spirit” thought of “wind of God” (very similar to what Jesus said in John 3:8), “God-spirited”: “All Scripture is God whispering and is profitable…” 

‘Reading and doing some research into how the word theopneustos was used in other Greek literature of the time, and without fail, it is used of poets and philosophers who seem to speak with a certain passion and urgency that makes people listen and obey what they are saying. But this was only in regard to what they were speaking. If someone wrote down what they said, and then passed it on, the written record of what had been spoken was never thought of as theopneustos (See TDNT VI:454). Inspiring words, once they were written down, lost their inspiring power.

Paul is saying that this is not true of Scripture. The written word of God, unlike any other writing, still maintains the breath of God upon it. When we read it, it is as if God is speaking it to us all over again, fresh, for our own ears. It is not simply a “divinely inspired record of what God said in history” but is the actual, living, voice of God, speaking directly into our lives. It is so real, you can feel His breath.

In being written, Scripture did not lose it’s “Godness.” It is not God, but is the voice of God, the breath of God, the whisper of God into our ears. This idea also fits with other biblical passages, such at 1 Kings 19:12 and Matthew 10:27 (Luke 12:3).

Paul’s point in putting it this way is not to give us a book of theological trump cards by which we can denounce as heretics all who disagree with us. No. Theopneustos refers to the profitability of Scripture in our own lives. Scripture is not given for us to beat others over the head with, but is for God to encourage us, and help us understand Himself in a deeper way.

Maybe we could say that 2 Timothy 3:16 should more properly be placed on the theological idea of “Illumination of Scripture” where God helps us understand and apply Scripture through the help of the Holy Spirit.

So in the end, it seems that 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying that Scripture is the voice of God, the breath of God, even the whisper of God into our lives in a way that makes it profitable even for us today. Though written, it did not lose it’s “inspiring” power to make us more like Jesus.

FOOTNOTES

i Good Translation, But Nothing More

This text article by Jeff Smelser

The King James Version, or "Authorized Version," of the Bible, first published in 1611 under the authority of England's King James (hence the designation, "Authorized"), was in that day a very good translation, and is yet today a useful translation. However, it has never been due the reverence which many people have toward it. In fact, no translation is due the reverence which many have toward the King James Version.

The inspired word of God was and is free from error, being the work not merely of men, but of men directed by the Spirit of God (2 Pt. 1:20-21, Acts 1:16, 2 Tim. 3:16). Translations of that word, however, are subject to the limitations of human ability, and therefore, are imperfect. Moreover, errors arise not only in the process of translating from the original languages utilized by God to other languages, but also due to the fact that translations are made from texts of God's word in the original languages, texts which are themselves imperfect in varying degrees. This last point is that with which we shall concern ourselves in this study, and especially as it has to do with the King James Version. No scriptures exist today in the hand of the original writer. Rather hand-made copies, and in reality, copies of copies, of the originals exist, some very ancient. These are called manuscripts. These manuscripts are imperfect copies, containing the same kinds of errors that slip into hand-made copies of any piece of literature, whether it be a work of Shakespeare, Homer, or a book report for school.

Translators work with compilations of these manuscripts. These compilations represent the efforts of men to weed out the errors (interpolations, omissions, and substitutions) of each individual manuscript by comparing various manuscripts, and arrive at a text which represents as accurately as possible the original text of the scriptures. This process is referred to as textual criticism.

Over five thousand manuscripts, including several from as early as the third century, are available to textual critics today. Some of these include virtually the entire Bible, while others contain only certain books, or groups of books of the Bible. Some are mere fragments. Such extensive manuscript evidence contributes to the ability of modern textual critics to present us with a reliable text of God's word.

However, such extensive and ancient manuscript evidence was not available at the time the King James Version was translated. Even such manuscript evidence as was available was not used as effectively as it could have been in attempting to determine the original text.

The Text Behind the King James Version

The Greek text used by the translators who made the King James Version is commonly referred to as the Received Text, which in turn had its beginnings in the early 1500's when the first printed Greek texts were made. The Complutensian Bible was a polyglot Bible, published in several volumes. The fifth volume, which included a Greek text of the New Testament, was printed in 1514. However, Erasmus' Greek text, printed in 1516, was the first to be marketed.

For this reason, and others, the text prepared by Erasmus surpassed the Complutensian text in popularity, and exerted the greatest influence on all the texts to follow for the next few centuries.

After Erasmus' text had seen several revisions, Robert Estienne, commonly referred to as Stephanus, published successive editions of a Greek text. His first two editions were compounds of Erasmus' text and the Complutensian text. However, the third edition (1550) was based primarily on the fourth and fifth editions of Erasmus' text. This 1550 edition gained wide acceptance in England, and for many is synonymous with the Received Text.

However, it was not until 1624 that the phrase, Received Text, or in the Latin, Textus Receptus, was actually coined, and then it was from the preface to the third edition of a Greek text published by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir. The words were, as described by Bruce Metzger, part of "a more or less casual phrase advertising the edition (what modern publishers might call a 'blurb')." The phrase boasted in Latin that the text presented was "the text which is now received by all." Thus came the phrase Textus Receptus, or Received Text.

The text published by the Elzevir brothers was mainly taken from a text published by Theodore de Beza in 1565. Beza's text showed its heritage from that of Stephanus, and ultimately from that of Erasmus. It is this basic text, common to Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers, which lies behind all the protestant translations into English that were made from the Greek language prior to the nineteenth century, including the King James Version. According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "The textus receptus...resolves itself essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus."

As we stated before, no translation is due the reverence which many have toward the King James Version. Moreover, while the King James Version represents a scholarly translation from the Greek, because of the Greek text which lies behind it, it is perhaps even somewhat less deserving of such high esteem than some other translations. Bruce Metzger writes,

So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness. (The Text of the New Testament, p. 106)

The vast majority of textual variations between the Textus Receptus and later texts (which are based to a large extent on older manuscripts that have been discovered or made available only in the last 150 years) are of no significance whatever. Often, variants are such that they are not at all distinguishable after being translated into English. At other times the variants merely represent the attempt of some scribe to supplement one synoptist's account with a detail legitimately provided in the account of another synoptist. However, occasionally the variations are more serious.

Although much credit is due to Erasmus for having made a Greek text available at all, the text which he presented was not of good quality. The half dozen manuscripts used by Erasmus were all of late origin. Most, if not all, were from the fifteenth century, while two may have been made as early as the twelfth century. He had only one manuscript which contained the book of

Revelation, and it was missing the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of Revelation. For these verses, Erasmus turned to the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the scriptures. Erasmus translated the Latin back to Greek. Thus, for those verses, it was a contrived Geek text which eventually came to be translated into English in the King James Version. Trying to discover the original Greek text by looking at a Latin translation is a little like trying to discover the exact ingredients used in making a German chocolate cake by tasting it. While your guess may be close, you will not be exactly right. Thus some words which have never been found in any Greek manuscript were incorporated into Erasmus' text, and in turn, into the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. For example, at Revelation 22:19, the phrase, "book of life" in the King James Version should be "tree of life" according to all known Greek manuscripts.

In other passages also, Erasmus took into his text words and phrases found in the Latin Vulgate, but supported by virtually no Greek manuscripts. Thus in Acts 9:5-6, the King James Version inherits from the Vulgate by way of Erasmus the following words:

...it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him...

We should note that these words do legitimately belong in Paul's account of his conversion as recorded by Luke in Acts 26 (verses 14-15), and therefore no factual error has been introduced in this instance.

The King James Version in Perspective

While there are perhaps no more than a dozen passages where the Received Text has an interpolation supported by no known Greek manuscript, there is a vastly greater number of passages where the Received Text has variant readings that are supported by Greek manuscripts. Often the manuscripts supporting such readings are in the majority. However, these manuscripts are generally of much later date than those which are deemed by most scholars to have the authentic reading.

These variations are almost always insignificant with respect to the practical meaning of God's word. Typical is the case of Mt. 13:9, where the King James Version has, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear," while most modern translations (including the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible) omit the words, "to hear". Most manuscripts include the words. However, the oldest manuscripts, and those considered most reliable by most scholars, omit the words. With reference to the meaning of the text, the variation is insignificant, especially because the words are included in the parallel accounts (Mk. 4:9, Lk. 8:8). Most scholars believe the variation is the result of scribes adding words to Matthew's account from the accounts of Mark and Luke. Such additions to the text seem to be characteristic of the manuscripts on which the Received Text, and therefore the King James Version, is based.

Some may wonder why we have spent so much time discussing variant readings if, in fact, they are as inconsequential as we have asserted. The very point we wish to make is that while the King James Version is a good and reliable translation of the inspired word, it is not itself

inspired. It is not due any greater reverence than any other good translation, and it is certainly not due the reverence which it receives among some who believe it alone ought to be used and all others are "innovations". (The King James Version itself was considered a vile innovation by many when it first came out.) The fact is, the King James Version is a good translation, and far better than the paraphrases which are so popular today (e.g. The Living Bible, and The Book, which is a new edition of The Living Bible), but it is not perfect.

Today, some scholars are again asserting that although the manuscripts behind the Received Text are generally of very late date, they should be followed in passages where a variant occurs, even though the oldest manuscripts stand against the reading. Simplistically put, these scholars believe we should follow the reading of the majority of manuscripts instead of the reading of the oldest manuscripts.

In the midst of this debate, the New King James Bible has been published in an attempt to capitalize on the King James Version market. The New King James Bible updates the language of the King James Version, but again follows the Received Text. Hence the New King James Bible includes many readings which are found in a majority of manuscripts but not in the oldest manuscripts. Whether or not this can be justified, the inclusion of passages which have no support among the extant Greek manuscripts certainly cannot be justified. However, the translators of the New Kings James Bible inexplicably duplicated this blunder earlier made by the translators of the King James Version (e.g. see Acts 9:5-6, 1 John 5:7-8, and "book" in Rev. 22:19).

One should not adhere to any translation to the exclusion of all others, and this is certainly true of the King James Version and the New King James Bible. One who uses either of these should also have a copy of one of the newer translations which are not based upon the Received Text. Especially recommended are the American Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible.

Note: This article first appeared in 1985 in "The Thayer Street Messenger." It is based, in part, on Bruce Metzger's THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed.,

Jeff Smelser

ii Questions for "KJV only" advocates:http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof

Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from others.

1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.

2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.

3. Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.

4. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

5. If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha:

6. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!

7. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?

8. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

9. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!

10. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?

11. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?

12. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?

13. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?

14. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?

15. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?

16. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)

17. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?

18. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

19. Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)

20. Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)

21. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?

22. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)

23. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?

24. Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?

25. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)

26. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?

27. Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)

28. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?

29. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)

30. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?

31. Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?

32. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

33. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?

34. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?

35. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?

36. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?

37. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]

38. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?

39. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

40. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

41. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?

42. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?

43. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?

44. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?

45. What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].

46. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?

47. Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?

48. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]

49. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?

50. Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?

51. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?

52. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?

53. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?

54. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

55. Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." - IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 ||

Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]

56. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

57. Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?

58. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?

59. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?

60. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."

61. Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?

62. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

63. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

64. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]

65. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]

66. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]

67. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even

turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?

68. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]

69. Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]

70. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]

iii DIFFERENT TYPLES OF BIBLES

1. Traditional. Text only. Minimal footnotes.

2. Study Bible. Such Bibles usually have extensive footnotes and explanatory notes next to the columns of text. They may also have extensive cross references, a narrative commentary, and maps. (Some also have a cyclopedic index and/or a concordance—see Reference Bible.)

3. Reference Bible. Usually has a cyclopedic index (like an encyclopedia with a reference to the verse where the word or thought is used), a concordance (like a dictionary of common words with examples of their usage and verse references for each example), and maps.

4. "Place in Life" Bible. Has meditations and thoughts about issues of concern to people at a particular stage in life. There are versions of these Bibles aimed at men, women, sports players, recovering addicts, new believers, converted Jews, small group members, and many others.

5. One-Year Bibles. Divided into 365 readings for each day of the year, usually with each having a portion of the Old Testament, New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs.

6. Chronological Bible. Entire Bible in one continuous story with narration to cover gaps and make everything flow. The four gospels are harmonized into one, for example, and the writings of the prophets are placed in the proper historical place in the books of history.

7. Pastor's Bible. Includes protocol outlines and recommended verses for hospital visits, weddings, funerals, and other events. Often has answers to frequently asked questions.

8. Children's Bible. Usually includes color drawings, maps, and simplified stories.

9. Parallel Bible. Has from two to eight translations side by side.

10.Other Specialty Bibles. The Serendipity Bible, The Quest, Key Word Bible, Leadership Bible, Hebrew-Greek Keyword Bible, "Here's Hope" Bible, Serenity Bible, and many others. http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/BibleType.htm

Which Bible Translation?

The translators of the King James Version of the Bible suffered a host of criticism over their "new translation". So much so that in the introduction to the 1611 edition, they wrote:

"Whosoever attempteth anything for the public (especially if it pertain to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himself upon a stage to be gloated upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue. For he that medleth with men's Religion in any part, medleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold; and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering."

From The Translator to the Reader in the 1611 edition of the Authorized King James Version.

Some folks get upset when anyone suggests that their Bible translation isn't the best one. If you're one of these, stop reading, or you will just get upset (and that leads to lengthy emails telling me how totally ignorant, arrogant or evil I am, emails which I assure you do not seem at all as clever or biting to me as they did to their writers). If, on the other hand, you're trying to answer the title question of this page, then you're welcome to my thoughts on the subject. This page is meant to be a work in progress, and I do welcome informative comments. For beginners comments on the Bible in general, check out my article: Bible Primer.

Does it Matter?

The Christian religion described in the New International Version is not the same religion described in the New American Standard Bible. Different translations say significantly different things sometimes. I struggle over whether it is better to have an accurate translation or a translation that is so reader-friendly that it actually gets read. I guess a Bible with some problems is better than no Bible at all. But the translation does matter.

Types of Translations

Bibles appear at different reading levels. The King James Version is considered the most difficult (12-grade) and at the other end of the spectrum is are the simple English and Children's Bibles. Most translations fall in the 6-8th grade reading level. The NASB is more difficult than that, and the Contemporary English Version (CEV) simpler.

There are also different translation methodologies including:

Formal EquivalenceThere is a large correspondence between words in the original language and the translation including attempts to preserve word order where possible. Examples: King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible

Dynamic EquivalenceRather than translating words, these translate ideas and whole thoughts. Examples: CEV, New Living Translation.

ParaphrasesThey tell you what they think the text says (or ought to say) in their own words. They are not actually translations, but paraphrases. Examples: The Living Bible, The Message.

I think that Formal Equivalence is the proper starting place. Formal Equivalence translations are least  likely to skew the text in one direction or another. They will preserve figures of speech. In some places, however, it's difficult to render a thought from one language to another and preserve word equivalences. For this reason, I believe that there is also a place for Dynamic Equivalence translations. By consulting more than one Dynamic Equivalence translation, one can get a range of interpretations and insights in to what the text means. As far as I'm concerned, there is no place for paraphrases.

What "bible" means

By derivation, the word bible means "library". The Bible is a collection of books written over a period of over 1000 years by many authors in three languages. At least some parts of the Bible are sacred to Christians, Jews and Muslims. The books in the Bible differ widely in their literary form and historical context. There are laws, biography, history, poetry, short stories, parables, proverbs, songs, letters, prophecy, and more.

What's the Bible about?

The Bible is about God, the creator of the earth and sky and humankind. The one God reveals himself to a Middle-Eastern man named Abraham to whom a promise is made. God's self-revelation and the

promise unfold through the story of Abraham's descendents. The Bible then tells of God's Son, Jesus, who came into the world to save it from sin and death and the early history of the "called out" followers of Jesus, the Christians.

The Textus Receptus

Contents: Introduction * The Origin of the Textus Receptus * The History of the Textus Receptus * The Text of the Textus Receptus * Addendum I: The King James Version * Addendum II: The "New TR"

IntroductionTextus Receptus, or "Received Text," (abbreviated TR) is the name we use for the first published Greek text of the New Testament. For many centuries, it was thestandard text of the Greek Bible. The name arose from the work of the kinsmen Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, who said of their 1633 edition, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum" -- "So [the reader] has the text which all now receive."

The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.

If this all sounds complicated, it is because of the complicated history of the Textus Receptus. Let's take it from the beginning.

The Origin of the Textus Receptus

Although printing with movable type was in use no later than 1456, it was many years before a Greek New Testament was printed. This is not as surprising as it sounds; the Greek minuscule hand of the late fifteenth century was extremely complicated, with many diverse ligatures and custom symbols. Cutting a Greek typeface required the creation of hundreds of symbols -- far more than a Latin typeface. Printers probably did not relish the idea. (It is worth noting that the Complutensian Polyglot invented a new type of Greek print for its edition.)

It was not until the early sixteenth century that Cardinal Ximenes decided to embark on a Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament -- the famous Complutensian Polyglot. The New Testament volume of this work was printed in 1514 -- but it was not published until after 1520. This left a real opportunity for an enterprising printer who could get out an edition quickly.

Such a printer was John Froben of Basle. Apparently having heard of the Complutension edition, he was determined to beat it into print. Fortunately, he had the contacts to pull this off.

Froben decided to approach Desiderius Erasmus, one of the most notable (if rather humanistic) scholars of his generation. The proposal appears to have been transmitted on April 17, 1515. Work began in the fall of that year, and the work was pushed through the press in February of

1516.

For a project that had taken fifty years to get started, the success of Erasmus's edition (which contained his Greek text in parallel with his own Latin version) was astonishing. The first printing soon sold out, and by 1519 a new edition was required. Three more would follow, each somewhat improved over the last.

It is sad to report that such a noble undertaking was so badly handled (all the more so since it became the basis of Luther's German translation, and later -- with some slight modifications -- of the English King James Version). The speed with which the book went through the press meant that it contained literally thousands of typographical errors. What is more, the text was hastily and badly edited from a few late manuscripts (see below, The Text of the Textus Receptus).

 A part of page 336 of Erasmus's Greek Testament, the first "Textus Receptus."Shown is a portion of John 18.

The History of the Textus Receptus

Erasmus's first edition was a great success; some 3300 copies of his first two editions were sold. (If that sounds like a small number, recall that there were probably fewer than 300 copies of the Mainz Vulgate, and that editions were usually restricted to 1000 copies as late as Elizabethan times and after.) The success of Erasmus's edition soon called forth new Greek testaments, all of them based largely on his. The first of these was published by Aldus Manutius in 1518 -- but although it contained an independent text of the Septuagint (the first such to be printed), its New Testament text was taken almost verbatim from Erasmus, including even the typographical errors. Hence the first truly new publication was Erasmus's own edition of 1519. This featured almost the same text as the 1516 edition, but with the majority (though by no means all!) of the errors of the press corrected. It also features some new readings, believed by Scrivener to come from 3eap (XII; classified by von Soden as e: Kx a: I [K]; c: K).

Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.

There followed a great welter of editions, all slightly different (based on such figures as I have seen, it would appear that editions of the Textus Receptus typically vary at between one hundred and two hundred places, though very few of these differences are more than

orthographic). None of these editions were of any particular note (though the 1534 text of Simon Colinæus is sometimes mentioned as significant, since it included some variant readings). It was not until 1550 that the next great edition of the Textus Receptus was published. This was the work of Robert Stephanus (Estienne), whose third edition became one of the two "standard" texts of the TR. (Indeed, it is Stephanus's name that gave rise to the common symbol   for the Textus Receptus.) Stephanus included the variants of over a dozen manuscripts -- including Codices Bezae (D) and Regius (L) -- in the margin. In his fourth edition (1551), he also added the verse numbers which are still used in all modern editions. The Stephanus edition became the standard Textus Receptus of Britain, although of course it was not yet known by that name. (The esteem in which the Textus Receptus was already held, however, is shown by Scrivener's report that there are 119 places where all of Stephanus's manuscripts read against the TR, but Stephanus still chose to print the reading found in previous TR editions.)

Stephanus's editions were followed by those of Theodore de Bèza (1519-1605), the Protestant reformer who succeeded Calvin. These were by no means great advances over what had gone before; although Beza had access to the codex which bears his name, as well as the codex Claromontanus, he seems to have made little if any use of them. A few of his readings have been accused of theological bias; the rest seem largely random. Beza's editions, published between 1565 and 1611, are remembered more for the sake of their editor (and the fact that they were used by the translators of the King James Bible) than for their text.

The next great edition of the Textus Receptus is the Elzevir text already mentioned in the Introduction. First published in 1624, with minor changes for the edition of 1633, it had the usual minor variants from Stephanus (of which Scrivener counted 287), but nothing substantial; the Elzevirs were printers, not critics.

The Elzevir text, which became the primary TR edition on the continent, was the last version to be significant for its text. From this time on, editions were marked more by their marginal material, as scholars such as Mill, Wettstein, and later Griesbach began examining and arranging manuscripts. None of these were able to break away from the TR, but all pointed the way to texts free of its influence.

Only one more TR edition needs mention here -- the 1873 Oxford edition, which forms the basis of many modern collations. This edition is no longer available, of course, though some editions purport to give its readings.

Beginners are reminded once again that not all TR editions are identical; those collating against a TR must state very explicitly which edition is being used.

The Text of the Textus Receptus

Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus's corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)

Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2 ap , and 1 r . In addition, he was able to consult 1 eap , 4ap, and 7p. Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition -- and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed "corruption" of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.

Even those who favour the Byzantine text cannot be overly impressed with Erasmus's choice of manuscripts; they are all rather late (see table):

Manuscript DateVon Soden Classification(in modern terms)

1eap XII e: family 1; ap: Ia3

1r XII Andreas

2e XII/XIII Kx (Wisse reports Kmix/Kx)

2ap XII Ib1

4ap XV

7p XI/XII Op18

Not only is 1r an Andreas manuscript rather than purely Byzantine, but it is written in such a way that Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1 r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript -- but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).

The result is a text which, although clearly Byzantine, is not a good or pure representative of the form. It is full of erratic readings -- some "Caesarean" (Scrivener attributes Matt. 22:28, 23:25, 27:52, 28:3, 4, 19, 20; Mark 7:18, 19, 26, 10:1, 12:22, 15:46; Luke 1:16, 61, 2:43, 9:1, 15, 11:49; John 1:28, 10:8, 13:20 to the influence of 1eap), some "Western" or Alexandrian (a good example of this is the doxology of Romans, which Erasmus placed after chapter 16 in accordance with the Vulgate, rather than after 14 along with the Byzantine text), some simply wild (as, e.g., the inclusion of 1 John 5:7-8). Daniel B. Wallace counts 1,838 differences between the TR and Hodges & Farstad's Byzantine text (see Wallace's "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique," in Ehrman & Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, Studies & Documents, Eerdmans, 1995. The figure is given in note 28 on page 302.) This, it should be noted, is a larger number than the number of differences between the UBS, Bover, and Merk texts -- even though these three editions are all eclectic and based largely on the Alexandrian text-type, which is much more diverse than the Byzantine

text-type.

Thus it will be conceded by all reputable scholars -- even those who favour the Byzantine text -- that the Textus Receptus, in all its various forms, has no textual authority whatsoever. Were it not for the fact that it has been in use for so long as a basis for collations, it could be mercifully forgotten. What a tragedy, then, that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to four centuries!

Addendum I: The King James Version

Authorized in 1604 and published in 1611, the King James version naturally is based on the TR. When it was created, there was no demand for critical editions. (Though in fact the original KJV contains some textual notes. These, like the preface, are usually suppressed in modern versions, making the version that much worse than it is. In addition, editions of the KJV do not print precisely the same text. But this is another issue.)

Even accepting that the KJV derives from the TR, and has most of its faults, it is reasonable to ask which TR it is based on. The usual simplistic answer is Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener, however, who studied the matter in detail, concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. (No doubt the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, however, states that even this edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text.

Since there are people who still, for some benighted reason, use the King James Bible for Bible study, we perhaps need to add a few words about its defects (defects conceded by all legitimate textual critics, plus most people who know anything about translations). This is not to deny that it is a brilliant work of English prose; it is a brilliant work of English prose. But it is not an adequate English Bible.

The first reason is the obvious textual one: It is translated from the Textus Receptus. There was no good alternative at the time, but we know now that it is simply a badtext. This is true event if one accepts the Byzantine text as original; the TR is not a good representative of that text-form, and is even worse if one accepts any other text form, or if one is eclectic.

The Old Testament suffers the same problem -- in some ways, worse. The Hebrew text had hardly been edited at all when the KJV was translated. Today, with more Hebrew manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, various translations, more ancient commentaries, and a better grasp of textual criticism, we can establish a much better Hebrew text.

The lack of Hebrew scholarship at the time contributed to an even greater problem with the Old Testament: The translators didn't know what it meant. Textual damage caused some of the cruxes; others arose from ignorance of classical Hebrew. The translators often had to turn to the

translations in LXX or the Vulgate -- which often were just as messed up as the Hebrew. Today, we have more samples of ancient Hebrew to give us references for words; we have knowledge of cognate languages such as Ugaritic and Akkadian, and we have the tools of linguistics. There are still unsolved problems in the Old Testament -- but they are far fewer.

The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the New Testament. Greek never entirely vanished from the knowledge of scholars, as Hebrew did, but the language evolved. At the time the KJV was translated, classical Greek -- the Greek of Homer and the tragic playwrights -- was considered the standard. Koine Greek -- the Greek of the New Testament -- was forgotten; the Byzantine empire had undergone a sort of Classic Revival. People referred to the Greek of the New Testament as "the Language of the Holy Spirit" -- and then sneered at its uncouth forms. Over the past century and a half, the koine has been rediscovered, and we know that the New Testament was written in a living, active language. This doesn't affect our understanding of the meaning of the New Testament as much as our increased knowledge of Hebrew affects our understanding of the Old -- but it does affect it somewhat.

In addition, there is the translation style. The KJV was created by six separate committees, with relatively little joint effort and a relatively small body of prior work (this was1604, after all; the committee from Cambridge couldn't just buzz down to Westminster for the afternoon, e.g.). This meant that there wasn't much standardization of vocabulary; a word might be translated two or three or even half a dozen different ways. Sometimes, of course, this was necessary (as, e.g. with ANWQEN, "again," "from above" in John 3:3, 7, 31 -- a case where the KJV translators seem, ironically, to have missed the multivalued meaning). But it is generally agreed that that KJV used various renderings for solely stylistic reasons; their translation was meant to be read aloud. They produced a version that was excellent for these purposes -- but, in consequence, much less suitable for detailed study, especially, e.g., of Synoptic parallels, which can look completely different when the KJV renditions are set side by side.

Plus the committee was under instructions to stay as close as possible to the previous standard, the so-called Bishop's Bible, which in turn had been created based on the Great Bible. And even it was derived largely from Tyndale's work. The Great Bible had been created some 75 years earlier, and Tyndale in the decades before that -- not long in ordinary terms, but this was a time when English was evolving fast. This heritage means that a number of the features -- e.g. the use of you/ye/thou/thee/thy/thine -- was actually incorrect even by the standards of the time, and its influence came to produce a truly curious effect: "Thou," initially the second person singular pronoun, (as opposed to "ye," the plural form, loosely equivalent to the American Southernism "y'all") was briefly a form used to address a social inferior, and then, under the influence of the KJV itself, treated as a form of address to one deserving of high dignity. This is genuinely confusing at best.

Finally, the KJV does not print the text in paragraphs, but rather verse by verse. Readers can see this, but it's one thing to know it and another to really read the text in that light.

To be fair, the translators were aware of most of these problems. The preface, in fact, urges "the Reader... not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily." The Old Testament, according to Alister McGrath, contained 6,637 marginal notes, most of them variant readings (more notes than many modern translations, we should observe). But I have yet to find a recent printing of the KJV which includes its marginal notes, let alone its preface. (I'm told there is one

-- or at least a reprint of an allegedly-exact nineteenth century repring -- but it's an expensive edition you won't find in ordinary bookstores.)

And, of course, since the time of publication, the language of the KJV -- already somewhat antiquated in its time, based as it was largely upon Tyndale's translation -- has become entirely archaic.

In an aside, we might note that, at the time of its publication, the KJV was greeted with something less than enthusiasm, and for the first few decades of its life, the Geneva Bible remained the more popular work; the Geneva edition (unlike the other pre-KJV translations) remained in print for more than thirty years after the KJV was published. During the Commonwealth period (1649-1660), there was talk of commissioning another new translation. It wasn't until the KJV became quite venerable that it somehow assumed an aura of special value -- even of independent canonicity.

Quite simply, while the King James Bible was a brilliant work, and a beautiful monument of sixteenth century English, it is not fit to be used as a Bible in today's world.

Addendum II: The "New TR"

The phrase "The New TR" is sometimes applied to editions which threaten to dominate the field of textual criticism. Thus the edition of Westcott & Hort was a sort of "New TR" in the late nineteenth century, and in the twentieth century the name is sometimes applied to the United Bible Societies edition. In terms of number of copies printed this description of the UBS text may be justified -- no complete new edition has been issued since its publication -- but no reputable textual scholar would regard it as the "final word."

Another sort of "New TR" is found in the Majority Text editions of Hodges & Farstad and Robinson & Pierpont. These are attempts to create a true Byzantine text (as an alternative to the TR, which is a very bad Byzantine text), but they have received relatively little critical attention -- less, probably, than they deserve (though few would consider them to contain the original text). Thus they cannot be considered truly "received" texts.

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html