In part 2 last Friday we concluded that “since the Authorized Version is an accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is inspired.” This conclusion must be somewhat qualified, however.
Two qualifications to the above must be made.
1.) Only Greek and Hebrew words are directly inspired. Translated words are derivatively inspired.[ix] The directly inspired Greek and Hebrew cannot be changed, jot or tittle. Translated words can be changed and still have the breath of God. Dropping the “eth” from KJV verbs would not make the translation lose the breath of God. One could, in like manner, say that the KJV is derivatively preserved, sharp, quick, powerful, faith-producing, and so on. This fact does not by any means make English, rather than the directly, verbally, plenarily inspired and perfectly preserved Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) words the Christian’s authority. The original language text is verbally, plenarily inspired, while a translation that is entirely accurate has plenary inspiration, but not the verbal inspiration of the original language,[x] and is entirely dependent for its authority upon the original language text. The substance of the meaning conveyed by God in Greek and Hebrew words is transferred into the language of a translation, but God did not dictate English, French, Spanish, or Latin words to the penmen of the Bible; He revealed Himself in Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words.[xi]
2.) When translations other than the KJV are accurate, in those parts they are also (derivatively) inspired. The NASV, for example, possesses the breath of God in the parts where it is not mistranslated nor is translated from a corrupt Greek or Hebrew text. This fact explains why believers who use English translations other than the KJV can be built up spiritually, and why unbelievers can be converted through the instrumentality of modern Bible versions.
This use of Theopneustos for product, rather than process, is the clear use of the Greek word in related Christian/Koiné Greek texts. For instance:[xii]
Papias 10:1 Regarding, however, the divine inspiration [Theopneustos] of the book [i.e., the Revelation of John] we think it superfluous to speak at length, since the blessed Gregory (I mean the Theologian) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear witness to its genuineness.[xiii] [Papias, who lived around the turn of the first century, reproduced by Andrew of Caesarea (563-637), Preface to the Apocalypse]
Here the book itself, the Greek words, the product, is referred to as inspired. Process is not in view, but product.
Sibylline Oracles 5:406-407 But God, the great Father of all within whom is the breath of God [Theopneustos], they were accustomed to reverence with holy sacrifices and hecatombs.[xiv]
Here the unknown writer of the Sibylline Oracles refers to the breath God puts within people as Theopneustos. It is simply “breath from God.”
Consistency thus requires that believers either refrain from calling translated Scripture “the Word of God” or allow the use of the word Theopneustos for anything that has the breath of God in it, including translated Scripture. An examination of the use of Theopneustos in its Koiné background leads to this conclusion.
The affirmation that translations possess the breath of God in a derived sense is by no means an affirmation of Ruckmanism. Peter Ruckman’s doctrine is that the English of the King James Version is superior to the Greek and Hebrew words God promised to preserve (Matthew 5:18), and thus involves a denial of the perfect preservation of the words God gave in the once-and-for-all completed process of giving the Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7). Ruckman affirms that a move of God like that mentioned in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611, a repudiation of the completion of the canon and a rejection of the warning of Revelation 22:18-19. Scripture, on the other hand, denies that 2 Peter 1:16-21 pertains to any other than the original writers of the Scripture when they penned the autographs, but maintains that the original copies do not lose the breath of God when they are copied or (in a derived sense) when they are accurately translated. Indeed, recognizing the Scriptural fact that the breath of God remains upon copies and (in a derived sense) accurate translations destroys the foundational appeal of the Ruckmanite error. Ruckmanism claims that only if one affirms that another supernatural act of giving the Scripture such as is described in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611 with the Authorized Version can one have a Bible in his hands today that is living, powerful, sharper than any two edged sword, and truly the Word of God. The fact that the breath of God remains in accurate copies and accurate translations allows the believer to affirm that he does indeed have the very Word of God in his hand when he holds a King James Bible, without adopting the heresy of a re-opening of the canon in 1611 or denying the promises of Scripture that every Hebrew and Greek word God gave in the autographs is still available and is still the ultimate authority for the Christian (Matthew 4:4; 5:18; Isaiah 59:21).
[ix] While it is true that the specific phrase derivatively inspired is not found anywhere in the Bible, it is equally true that the word translation is absent. The implications of this paragraph, and the doctrine of derivitive inspiration, are simply the good and necessary consequences of the fact that accurately translated Scripture is still Scripture, and one can accurately translate Scripture in more than one way. Inspiration isderived in translated Scripture because the words in the receptor language derive all their authority from the original language texts that are correctly translated. The fact that translated words can be modified and still have the breath of God is the necessary consequence of the fact that “he doeth” and “he does” are both correct translations of the appropriate Greek or Hebrew phrases. Thus, one has no right to object to the use of the word derivitive in connection with inspiration, based on the absence of the word in the Bible, in connection with translations, unless he likewise objects to and abstains from the use of the word translation itself, never refers to Scripture as verbally or plenarily inspired, abstains from speaking of monotheism, or the Trinity, and so on. The use of the term derivative inspiration is simply a way of expressing the necessary distinction between the perfect and absolutely unchangable original language texts given by God once for all in the autographs (2 Peter 1:16-21; Jude 3) and accurately translated copies. Not the word Theopneustos alone, but all the terms that pertain to the original language texts of the Bible only pertain in a derived way to copies. Since translated Scripture is only in a derived sense Scripture, the Word of God, quick/living, powerful, profitable, and so on, it is, in like manner, inspired in a derived sense.
[x] Nonetheless, in a derivative way, texts like “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and theyare life” (John 6:63) are applicable to the words of accurate translations, although translated words are unlike the unchangeable, ultimately authoritative Greek words Christ originally spoke which were recorded by the Apostle John through the dictation of the Holy Spirit.
[xi] The affirmation of absolute verbal and plenary inspiration for the original language text, but of a secondary derivative inspiration for accurate translations, is the classic position assumed by Baptists and Protestants in the Reformation and post-Reformation era. Richard Muller explains the historic Protestant position:
[Alongside] the insistence of the Reformed that the very words of the original are inspired, the theological force of their argument falls in the substance or res rather than on the individual words: translations can be authoritative quoad res because the authority is not so much in the words as in the entirety of the teaching as distributed throughout the canon. . . . [T]he issue of “things” (res) and “words” (verba) . . . is crucial to the Protestant doctrine of Scripture and is, as many of the other elements of the Protestant doctrine, an element taken over from the medieval tradition and rooted in Augustine’s hermeneutics. . . . [T]he words of the text are signs pointing to the doctrinal “things.” This distinction between signa and res significata, the sign and the thing signified, carries over into the language typical of scholastic Protestantism, of the words of the text and the substance of the text, of the authority of translations not strictly quoad verba but quoad res, according to the substance or meaning indicated by the original. . . . [O]nly the [original language] sources are inspired (theopneustoi) both according to their substance (quoad res) and according to their words (quoad verba)[.] This must be the case, since holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, who dictated to them not only the substance (res) but also the very words (verba). For the same reason, the Hebrew and the Greek are the norms and rules by which the various versions are examined and evaluated. . . . [There is] a distinction between authenticity and authorship quoad verba, which belongs only to the Hebrew and Greek originals, and authenticity and authority quoad res, which inheres in valid translations. . . . Thus translations can be used, but with the reservation that only the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the authentic norms of doctrine and the rule by which doctrinal controversy is to be decided[.] Versions that are congruent with the sources are indeed authentic according to substance (quoad res); for the Word of God [may be] translated into other languages: the Word of God is not to be limited, since whether it is thought or spoken or written, it remains the Word of God. Nonetheless they are not authentic according to the idiom or word, inasmuch as the words have been explained in French or Dutch. In relation to all translations, therefore, the Hebrew and Greek texts stand as antiquissimus, originalis, and archetypos. Thus, translations are the Word of God insofar as they permit the Word of God to address the reader or hearer: for Scripture is most certainly the Word of God in the things it teaches and to the extent that in and by means of it power of God touches the conscience. Even so, in translations as well as in the original the testimony of the Holy Spirit demonstrates the graciousness of God toward us. All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly render the original: the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all idioms. (pgs. 269, 326-327, 403, 416, 427-428, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; volume 2, Holy Scripture: The cognitive foundation of theology (2nd ed.), Richard Muller. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003; quotations and original sources not reproduced)
[xii] Compare also the uses (which are loose but relevent for comparison) of Theopneustos as product in the Sibylline Oracles 5:308, “God-breathed streams” (na¿masin toi√ß qeopneu/stoiß) Pseudo-Phocylides 129, “God-breathed wisdom” (qeopneu/stou sofi÷hß) and Testament of Abraham (Recension A) 20:11, “God-breathed ointments and perfumes” (muri÷smasi qeopneu/stoiß kai« aÓrw¿masin). In each of these instances a divine quality is ascribed to the noun modified by Theopneustos. The God-breathed ointments and perfumes” of theTestament of Abraham is parallel to the “God-woven linen cloth” (sindo/ni qeou¨fantwˆ◊) mentioned immediately previously. (Of course, a simply linguistic point is being made here, namely, that Theopneustos is a designation for a product—by no means must the verbal, plenary giving of each word of the Scriptures by God be reduced to the level of allegedly divine quality unknown Koiné writers ascribe to perfume or ointment.) Note the detailed and careful discussion of these texts (and others, such as Nonnus’ “theopneustic sandal,” a Bostran inscription speaking of an arjciereuß qeopneu/stoß, etc.) by Warfield in Revelation and Inspirationchapter 7.
[xiii] Peri« me÷ntoi touv qeopneu/stou thvß bi÷blou [thvß ∆Apokalu/yewß ∆Iwa¿nnou] peritton mhku/nein ton lo/gon hJgou/meqa, tw◊n makari÷wn Grhgori÷ou fhmi« touv qeolo/gou kai« Kuri÷llou, prose÷ti de« kai« tw◊n aÓrcaiote÷rwn Papi÷ou, Ei˙rhnai÷ou, Meqodi÷ou kai« ÔIppolu/tou tau/thØ prosmarturou/ntwn to aÓxio/piston.
[xiv] aÓlla» me÷gan genethvra qeon pa¿ntwn qeopneu/stwn e˙n qusi÷aiß aJgi÷aiß e˙ge÷rairon kai« e˚kato/mbaiß.
"ultimately authoritative Greek words Christ originally spoke which were recorded by the Apostle John through the dictation of the Holy Spirit…"
Now we have Christ speaking in Greek to the Hebrews????
No wonder you will not publish my comments, you are not MAN enough to be called out on this nonsense, speculation, private interpretation and just plain laughable "traditions of men".
You are scripturally ignorant of the Lord Gods preservation of the scriptures.
Dear George Calvas,
Yes, the Greek words in the Gospels are the actual words Christ preached. Greek was the language of public discourse in Christ's day in Palestine, and he therefore did indeed preach in Greek. Aramaic was the language spoken in many Jewish homes, and Hebrew was also relatively well-known. Texts such as Mark 5:41 support the fact that Christ preached in Greek:
And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
If everything Christ said was in the same language as "Talitha cumi," that phrase would not have needed to be translated as it was in the verse. The Lord Jesus said everything else in Greek but employed the Aramaic "heart –language" spoken in many homes instead of the language of public discourse to raise the girl from the dead.
George, the many insults, bizarre things, gross displays of ignorance, and false doctrines that you have promoted on this blog are a great demonstration of how bad Ruckmanism is. You do a great job showing that it is a false doctrine. You display the ignorance of many Ruckmanites, combined with their proclivity to offer rash insults, when you accuse me of being ignorant when you cannot even write in correct grammar. You display the thoughtlessness of many Ruckmanites when you make the astonishing affirmation that Pastor Brandenburg banned you from commenting on this blog because he wasn't a "MAN," rather than because of all the heretical foolishness you were spouting, in combination with crazy insults right and left. You display the unwillingness of many Ruckmanites to listen to anybody from the fact that after getting banned from this blog you insist on posting anonymous comments as if you were not you. You display the unconverted condition of many Ruckmanites by the fact that you reject the Trinity and believe that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit is like the spirit of a dead man.
I am so thankful that I do not need to choose to believe either the secular rationalism of lower critical scholars who reject the biblical promises of the preservation of Scripture or to believe the wild-eyed and filthy-mouthed spew of Ruckmanism. What a blessing it is that I can simply believe what the Bible says and avoid both rationalism and fanaticism.
The following was written specifically to deal with a different subject, but it still shows that Christ preached in Greek so that we have his actual words in the Gospels:
The idea that the gospels do not actually record Christ’s words, but only his “voice,” has also grown to dominate evangelical scholarship— the words which the Bible states that He said are seen as the product of the several evangelists. Those who contend that the gospels actually contain Christ’s words hold an ipsissima verba position, while those who reject this but still wish to abide in the evangelical camp take the “voice” or ipsissima vox viewpoint.[11] Ipsissima verba is clearly taught in Scripture. It is affirmed every time the NT states Christ “said” something. God means what He says, and if the declaration that the Lord said certain words does not mean that He actually said them, language no longer has meaning. When the Bible declares, “these words spake Jesus” (Jn 8:20, 30, cf. 8:31, 37, 43, 47), who dares conclude He did not say those words, but some “vox” paraphrase of them? The retort that the words of the gospels are the Holy Spirit’s words, so they are authoritative although Christ did not speak them, neglects the fact that He is the Spirit of truth, so He would not inspire a “Jesus said…” which Jesus did not say. Indeed, ipsissima verba is essential to spiritual growth, for the saints cannot live by His words if they don’t have them (Mt 4:4). God’s people must hear the words of the Son (Jn 12:47), receive His words (Jn 12:48, 17:8), keep His words (Jn 14:23), have His words abiding in them (Jn 15:7) and remember His words are from the Father (Jn 14:10). Furthermore, were Christ’s words not in the gospels, the declaration of Mt 24:35 (and Mr 13:31 & Lu 21:33) would be false. The penalty for being ashamed of Christ’s words (Mr 8:38) would be irrelevant to today if only His “voice” was preserved. How horrible to say that the wonderful prayer of John 17, which begins “These words spake Jesus…” (v. 1) is really only the words of John the apostle, who paraphrased to give the “genuine voice” of the Great High Priest! Of course, were this the case, the fact that the Saviour, in that prayer, said “I have given unto them the words which thou gavest Me; and they have received them…” (Jn 17:8) would be irrelevant, since it would only be John’s paraphrase of something else Christ actually spoke which is now irrecoverably gone. God forbid that the saints do not have the “gracious words that proceeded out of His mouth” (Lu 4:22), that they cannot believe “the word which Jesus had said” (Jn 2:22), for it is gone; that the One who “speaketh the words of God” (Jn 3:34) has not preserved these words for His people, that they may believe them (Jn 5:47). Christ declared “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jn 6:63). How sad is man’s state if these words of the Son are irrecoverably lost in the expansions and contractions of mortals! Peter asked, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68). A vox position means that those invaluable words of eternal life are gone, replaced by whatever the human writers of Scripture apparently thought better met the needs of their community than the actual words of the Christ of God. A recorded example of Peter’s recollection of Christ’s words gives a word for word repetition of what Christ said, not a mere paraphrase (Mt 26:34, 75): “before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice” (prin alektora fwnhsai triv aparnhsh me) is verbatim (cf. Ac 1:5, 11:16, also verbatim in Greek).
John 21:15-17 provides an undisputable example of Christ repeating teaching several times with different words; if He can do it here, why can He not have actually spoken the different words the gospel writers record of Him in the synoptic gospels to convey similar or the same teaching on either the same or different occasions? The Spirit-led recollection of Christ’s words in the composition of the gospels worked in the same manner. Arguments about memories adept at memorization in the first century are interesting, but the fundamental matter is that Christ promised that the Spirit would bring to the minds of the writers of Scripture “whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jn 14:26).[12] Human ability or inability to remember the exact words of long discourses is irrelevant, for the Spirit of Jehovah is omnipotent and omniscient, and He is the Author of Scripture. Finally, the entire notion that God or Christ’s “voice” is not expressed in concrete words which He stated is philosophically and logically tenuous. Thoughts are expressed in words, and a set of words different from those Christ actually spoke simply cannot have exactly the same meaning. Granting that such do not have the same meaning, how are they the Lord’s “voice?” How can the gospels record that He “said” them? The inability to soundly answer these questions makes the vox viewpoint, in addition to its explicit anti-scripturality, lean towards the heretical modernistic and neo-orthodox “historical Jesus/ risen Lord” distinction. In truth, are not these substitute words rather distortions of and perversions of that Divine voice? The vox evangelical could not, consistent with his synoptic presuppositions, censure Eve for her misstatement of Jehovah’s command in Gen 3:3— nor even the serpent for his subtile bending of God’s commands (Gen 3:1, etc.) Modernists may join with “conservative” degreed infidels to sneer at ipsissima verba, and find vox more palatable, but this gives God’s people no reason to betray such an essential truth. The day hastens when Christ will say to those who belittle His Word, “I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you” (Prov 1:26-27). In the day when the blood of those who reject the Word of God stains His raiment (Is 63:6), what evangelical or fundamentalist will prefer having chosen the temporal tents of ease of compromised scholarolotry to a short stand without the camp and the eternal acceptance of Jehovah Sabaoth?
The above is reproduced from here:
http://faithsaves.net/evangelical-modernism-scriptural-fundamentalist-synoptic-gospels-evangelicalism/
Brother Ross, I have two comments, I will at least get one of them posted, and maybe the second. First, the idea that Jesus must have spoken in Greek is, I must confess, a new one to me.
You said this: "God’s people must hear the words of the Son (Jn 12:47), receive His words (Jn 12:48, 17:8), keep His words (Jn 14:23), have His words abiding in them (Jn 15:7) and remember His words are from the Father (Jn 14:10)."
Those who do not know Greek do not hear the Greek words of the Son, receive them, etc. It is enough, for the very reasons you have been posting, that they hear and receive an accurate translation of His words. Thus, these Greek accounts do not need to be the exact Greek words that He spoke for them to have the effects you describe. He could not have spoken different Greek words, or the statements of Scripture would be false. But He most certainly could have spoken Hebrew/Aramaic words which have been given to us in Greek form by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thus, we know that they are a perfectly accurate account, in Greek, of what He spoke. But there is no necessity that He spoke in Greek.
Thus, in Matthew 19:5, Jesus tells us that "He (God) said" and then says a lot of Greek words. Yet, God said Hebrew words. If Jesus told the truth in Matthew 19:5, which He manifestly did, then we can view the words He cited as God's words whether they were in the original Hebrew or in a Spirit-moved translation into Greek (Mt 19), or in our translation.
Similarly, we can view the words Jesus said as His words whether in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, or English, as long as they are faithfully translated.
I fully understand your concerns about what scholars are saying today, but the Scriptures simply do not require us to believe that Jesus must have spoken in Greek in every or even most cases. They do require us to believe that God has preserved (by inscripturation and continuing preservation) the Greek account, and rely on it. Modern scholarship is speculating about some underlying Hebrew / Aramaic text and using such speculation as an excuse to undermine the Greek. (Ruckmanism also undermines the God-given Greek text with his heresy.) We should just accept that the Greek text is an accurate report of what Jesus said in the language in which God chose to preserve it for us. If we are consistent, we cannot claim that the Scriptures require it to have been spoken originally in Greek.
Second comment, as to the distinction between "directly inspired" and "derivatively inspired," with the latter referring to translations (and copies), the former referring to the original manuscripts only.
This is clearly true. However, I am doubtful as to whether this is the best way to express it.
The Westminster Confession, followed by the London Baptist Confession and others, used what I believe is better language. It referred to "immediate inspiration" and "inspiration." Thus, "immediate inspiration" is the act by which the Word was given, applying to the original autographs, while "inspiration" is the derived result from that action, which applies to copies as well as accurate translations.
Why do I believe this is better wording? Very simply, it fits Biblical usage. Theopneustos, in context, is referring to copies / translations, that Timothy read as a child, that he is to preach as a man. It is the quality of the Scriptures which remains in the Book he holds in his hand. Since we translate that as "inspiration", we should use "inspiration" to describe the "Book in hand" characteristic.
If we want a name for the act of giving the original autographs, let us use something different. Otherwise, we continue to feed the idea that inspiration applies only to the original autographs, which can be so detrimental. Call it "immediate inspiration" or "inspired inscripturation" (my preference) or something. But let's use "inspiration" the way that Scripture uses it. There's been too much confusion on this.
"the God-given Greek text"
Let us see, the last time I checked there are over 30 "Greek texts" in existence.
What is THE God-given Greek text?
Let us see, the last time I checked there are over 30 "English Bibles" in existence.
Which proves neither more nor less than the existence of multiple Greek texts.
"Which proves neither more nor less than the existence of multiple Greek texts.'
That is not correct.
There is THE English text that is the inspired words of God out of 200+ other corruptions of that text that came after it. The King James Bible (Authorized Bible) is believed by faith, preached, taught and lived by many in the body of Christ throughout THE WORLD. There is NO Greek text that has any authority over the body of Christ.
Many like scriptures such as 2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ" prove that the true words of God that are believed to be inspired are followed by those who would corrupt them.
Dear Anonymous,
If you do a search here on What Is Truth, you'll find an answer to your question about the Greek text. In fact, if you read the comments on parts one and two of this series, you will also find the answer. If you visit here:
http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/
you will also find the answer.
By the way, the body of Christ is the local assembly, 1 Cor 12:27.
When you say that no Greek text has any authority, you are denying the preservation of Scripture and adopting a very serious false doctrine.
Dear Jon,
The idea that Christ preached in Greek is actually relatively widespread – you can see the question discussed, for example, in Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Verses like Mark 5:41, or the passage in Acts 22 where the crowd was more silent when Paul preached in Hebrew, showing that they expected and would have understood him had he preached in Greek, evidencing that Greek was the language of public discourse in Palestine in the first century, while Aramaic and Hebrew were also still in use.
Thanks for the comment about immediate inspiration versus simply inspiration. It is worth thinking about. I would say that if the words are proceeding from the mouth of God now, Matthew 4:4, then there was a point clearly when they began to do so, and so I don't have a problem with calling that process inspiration, although the emphasis in 2 Timothy 3:16 is certainly product, not process.
Also, I would not say that original language copies have derivative inspiration; I would say that they have exactly the same quality of inspiration as the autographs if they are identical to them, while translations that are accurate have derivative inspiration. I would also say that believers who do not know the original languages hear the words of the Son of God in a derivative way in their accurate translations. However, I believe that the verses like Matthew 24:35 and others that I listed would support the fact that we have the very words of the Son that He spoke, not just an accurate translation of those words. Because accurately translated Scripture is still the Word of God, a text like Matthew 19:5 can be explained while we can still hold that Matthew 24:35 is a promise that the actual specific words that came out of the mouth of the Lord Jesus would be preserved for us.
Thanks for the comment.
Question:
Are you saying that the NT was written in Greek though ALL the writers were Jews?? Are you saying that the book of Hebrews written to Hebrews was in Greek? How about the book of Romans? It could have been written in Latin, for "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS". My argument is just as good as anything you offer as proof.
Also, your vague and weak arguments to prove Jesus Christ spoke Greek is also left wanting and cannot be proven since he came to only the lost sheep of Israel. Why would he speak Greek if he came to the Jew only?
I have been over this stuff ad nauseam. Your discussion concerning "Is the King James Bible Inspired" is double talk by using "scripture" verses "translation" to say that the King James Bible is "scripture" and inspired, but the "translation" in the English tongue is not?
The truth of the matter is the summary above which you espouse is one of the best examples of equivocation that I have seen!
What the problem is that you do not understand how inspiration of scripture is transmitted which is by the Holy Ghost and it has nothing to do with who wrote it, but rather "when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." First it was heard, then eventually it arrived in written form and it was read and the church determined its validity. Do you actually believe that what was first heard from Paul was EXACTLY what was written from the prison in Rome approximately 5-15 years (2nd journey until prison) later?
But rather, they knew the authority of the Apostle, and the body of Christ determined that which was written to be the very words of God, inspired by the Spirit of God through each of churches it was written to (same argument above as written epistles were sent by others).
For example, how was the epistle to the Ephesians identified in (1) Ephesus and (2) other churches after Paul said in Acts 20, "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them"? He had not even written it yet (this would come 5 YEARS latter), but already corruption and the work of Nicolaitanes had begun in Ephesus!
It was the body of Christ that identified it to have the authority of God, by the Holy Ghost, keeping it, copying it, sending it forth, translating it to other tongues, yet ALWAYS among all the corruptions, throughout history, the inspired text lives on in different text forms, as from the beginning, by the body of Christ making it known as it is today and found within the Holy Writ of the Holy King James Bible.
It matters not to God what language he uses to inspire his words because it is the body of Christ, his church, that determines inspiration by the Holy Ghost and seals the words that are written!
Therefore, does your church have a scriptural authority over it that is preached, taught, believed and lived? If that is the King James Bible, then it is by definition scripture and therefore is inspired by God, for they are the VERY WORDS of God kept by the church.
Dear George Calvas (that is, Anonymous),
Yes, I am sure that the New Testament was written in Greek, not in Latin.
Why not repent of your false doctrine that Jesus is the Father? I have already told you many times that since you don't believe in the Trinity, I don't care that you believe in Ruckmanism – though even Ruckman does not make the astonishing affirmation that we don't know whether the New Testament was written in Greek.
Thank you for the response, Thomas. Yes, I am aware of the view that Jesus often taught in Greek, and have no particular objection to it. I just find the view that He always must have and could never have spoken in Hebrew / Aramaic rather surprising and not actually supported by Scripture, for the reasons I cited.
In this case, if we have a translation of His words into Greek, it is not merely an accurate translation but an inspired one, and I would not find that contradictory of Matthew 24:35. But I understand your position.
Dear Jon,
I would not say that he never taught in Aramaic or Hebrew, simply that Greek was the language of public discourse.
Thanks.