2 Timothy 3:16
Three Words
The classic location for the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible is in 2 Timothy 3:16. It reads:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
The first part provides the doctrine, which says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Those eight words translate three Greek words: Pasa graphe theopneustos. Pasa is an adjective that means “all” and modifies the noun graphe, which means “writing” or “scripture.” For instance, the latter’s verb form, grapho, means, “I am writing.” BDAG says the verb means “to inscribe characters on a surface.” The noun refers to the characters inscribed on the surface of a writing material.
The Meaning of the Words
Graphe in a specific way refers to sacred scripture, depending on the context. It is a technical word for scripture. The Apostle Paul employs that technical usage in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Theopneustos is another adjective modifying graphe. It means literally, “God breathed.” The KJV translators translated that one adjective, “is given by inspiration of God.”
Some people use “is” as a reason to say that theopneustos functions like a present tense verb. They use the present tense to say that inspiration continues in a translation. Even the original Authorised Version printed “is” in italics to say it was not in the original text. The translators are communicating that they supplied the word “is.” No one should treat it like it is part of the original text.
Putting together the first three Greek words of 2 Timothy 3:16, “God breathed the characters inscribed on a surface.” It was not the men inspired. It was the writings inspired. God breathed out writings. What ended on the writing surface came from God.
Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation
God also preserved those words He breathed in the original manuscripts. The words He preserved are still the ones God breathed. They remain inspired.
When someone translates God’s inspired words into another language are those inspired? God did not breath out those words. However, if they are translated in an accurate way, a faithful manner, into the host language, those words have God’s breath in them.
The New Testament treats Greek words that translate well the Hebrew words of the Old Testament like they are the words of God. Jesus treats His Greek words of His translation of the Old Testament as if they are the Words of God. However, that doesn’t mean that God breaths out a translation. The former and the latter are two different actions or events.
False Views and the True One
It is important that a version of scripture translate the original language words in an accurate manner. The King James Version translators made an accurate translation of the original language text, both Old and New Testaments. God’s breath is in the translation. In that way we can call it inspired. However, God did not breath out English words. He did not breath out new English words later after breathing out Hebrew and Greek ones.
Part of why it is important to get inspiration and translation right is because of two false views. One is double inspiration. This says that God inspired the King James translation like He did the original manuscripts. Two is English preservation, where God apparently lost the original language words, so He preserved His words anew in the English language. Again, both those views are false.
2 Timothy 3:16 instructs people in the doctrine of inspiration. The only time that inspiration occurred was when holy men wrote the original manuscripts. God inspired every one of their words and all of them.
Your wrote:
“This says that God inspired the King James translation like He did the original manuscripts. Two is English preservation, where God apparently lost the original language words, so He preserved His words anew in the English language.”
The bible makes no distinction about “translation”. That is a false dichotomy. When it comes to the doctrine of inspiration, translation of words have nothing to do with it. You are in a camp that wants to exalt languages (Greek, Hebrew) above the written words in the language God wants to use in order to make you the final authority rather than the scriptures.
More false dichotomy when using “double inspiration”. The words of God are inspired no matter what language form they are currently in. What the church needs to do is to find out where God has “All scripture” that is inspired by God. It is obvious that the Holy King James Bible is today the infallible, inerrant words of God. There are no errors in the Holy Book. The inspiration of its words have been kept by the power of God through the church for over 400 years.
It is the only bible that is final authority for the church today, the body of Christ. Just as you needed to learn Hebrew, Greek and other languages to know the words of God previously (preservation), we have today the English inspired text of God that requires no Greek or Hebrew or any other language to understand the manifestation of God on this earth!
Jeremiah 22:29 clearly states, “O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.” That word is found in the Holy King James Bible.
The comment above is Exhibit A, methinks, illustrating Bro. Brandenburg’s point precisely. It is at the very least anglocentric, since even translations of the KJV in other languages cannot conclude all and nothing more than the KJV does.
And the comment above is anonymous. Please, sir or madam, let us know your name. Thank you.
Oops: “conclude” should be “include”.
Hello Anonymous!
The Bible actually does teach that there is a difference between Greek, Hebrew, and English. Please read:
https://faithsaves.net/learn-greek-hebrew/
to find out about the differences.
I do not have time to discuss it with you here extensively.
Thanks.
I disagree with all your reasons on your site:
1> The Lord Jesus Christ Learned These Languages
We know he spoke Hebrew by the OT and NT references and knowing he was born to Jewish parents. Please provide proof that Jesus Christ learned Greek. You have no scriptural evidence. He might have spoken in Greek. We know he spoke in Aramaic (Matthew 27:46). He could also have spoken in Latin or Syriac, but there is no scriptural proof.
2> To Show Reverence for God’s Inspired and Preserved Revelation
Please provide scriptural proof that you have an inspired Greek or Hebrew text today in order to show reverence. Do the Christians in your church read, get taught from and preached to exclusively in Greek or Hebrew?
3> The Languages Powerfully Aid the Study of God’s Word
Disagree. You do not need a Lexicon to change the meaning of a Greek word when one does not even understand Greek grammatical structure. All you need are the English scriptures, a good English dictionary and an English concordance.
So, you do not believe that the King James Bible is inspired?
If it is not inspired, then there must be errors or even contradictions. If there are no errors or contradictions, then the English text is inspired according to what is written.
If it is not inspired, please provide an error in the King James Bible.
Dear Anonymous,
I would hope that you would consider what I’m going to write, but what I expect is that you will do whatever it takes to support your position, even if it is wrong.
1) All four gospels report Jesus’ words in Greek. All of those say, “Jesus said,” and then something in Greek. Greek was the common language, the lingua franca of the world in Jesus’ time. We know there was a large Greek population everywhere He went in the Gentile regions, and for John 7:35 to be true, He must know Greek. Jesus and Pilate conversed in a language they both knew (Mk. 15:2-5; Mt. 27:11-14; Lk. 23:2-5; Jn. 18:29- 38). This language could not have been Hebrew based on the text of the verses. The names of people in the NT are Greek adapted names, not Hebrew. Jesus used the word “Sanhedrin” which is Greek. What we have preserved is a Greek text of the New Testament and God promised to preserve His Word. You should believe this.
2) This is a red herring. Jesus translated from the OT when He taught. This is His will. The verses on the preservation of scripture provide a presuppositional proof. What was kept He preserved. Scriptural proof is Matthew 5:17-19. The Lord used gegraptai for the Hebrew text (Matt 4:4; Luke 4:4), He referenced Hebrew jots and tittles (Matt 5:18) and the three-fold division of the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) in several passages (Luke 11:50–51; 24:27, 44). We derive the meaning of God’s Word from what He gave, Hebrew and Greek. Genesis 2:23 uses a Hebrew pun, not seen in English, with bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, bohu/tohu. Many of these types of examples exist. Jesus translating from Hebrew to Greek indicate the vitality of translation. Much more could be said here.
3) You’re wrong and you don’t prove anything here. You just make a judgment with no proof. I don’t believe the KJV is given by inspiration of God.
Just because you imply something from that which is true (Jesus spoke other languages than Hebrew), does not mean that your conclusions are correct.
To point #1:
1> Are you implying that when he spoke in the land of Israel, he did not speak Hebrew?
2> Are you implying that all the apostles wrote in Greek?
3> Are you implying that the scriptures that Jesus Christ opened to read in Isiah were in Greek?
There are many times throughout the OT that languages other than Hebrew were used and therefore “translated”. The time Solomon spoke to the queen of Sheba, the sayings of Cyrus, Ezra and Ahasuerus, the speaking of Abimelech to Abraham, the speaking of Nebuchadnezzar, when the Chaldeans spoke in Syriack (Daniel 2), etc.
So, you have not proven anything about Greek, Hebrew or any tongue used by God that has anything to do with “original” language. That is truly a red herring.
The Bible is self-authenticating. God would use His institutions to preserve His Words. We see what He did. He preserved the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT. Those were copies of copies from the original manuscripts. God led His people into all truth through the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. That’s how we know what are the 66 books. That’s how we know what the very Words of God are.
From there, you get to “Jesus said” in the Gospels, and He said Greek Words. From there we have further evidence in the New Testament for the use of Greek.
We don’t have modern English of the King James Version until the 16th century. We have about 1600 years between the writing of the NT until the King James Version.
Ken,
Point #3:
If the King James Bible or any bible throughout the preservation of scripture is not inspired it cannot by definition be the pure words of God, but just mans attempt to do the best they can. “Preach the word” then means nothing.
So, by your comment you are implying that the King James Bible is not scripture, therefore cannot be trusted unless you “go to the Greek”, the inspired scripture. This sounds like confusion of face, since the language of the world today speaks English, in which God himself had a hand, through the church, to give the world an inspired Bible to preach so that they can come to the knowledge of the truth.
Therefore, then please tell me where all the words of God can be found that are inspired? Are you preaching this Greek “inspired” text?
I am truly confused by your comments. Please clarify your position.
Anonymous,
Preach the Word does mean preaching what people would have understood in the original audience. We are not shut out from that understanding. A translation into the audience language is edifying. God intended translation of His Word (Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 14, etc.). Jesus translated. God created language. God allowed translation from one language to another as part of His design of language, which He created. Someone can preach the Word with a translation.
I am more confused by your answer.
So, a translation, like the King James Bible is the word of God, but not inspired?
If that is what you are saying, what does this mean?
Job_32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
How can the “spirit of man” have any understanding of God if the “inspiration” of the Almighty uses an uninspired translation?
What you show anonymous is that you can take a Strong’s concordance and look up the word “inspiration,” the English word found 2 times in the Bible. They are two different words in the Hebrew and the Greek. The latter is used 24 times in the Old Testament, the first in Genesis 2:7 speaking of God breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life. I said in my first post that the breath of life is found in an accurate translation and I explained that in some of my comments as well. However, I don’t believe God breathed out the translation in 1611. That’s not what Paul refers to in 2 Timothy 3:16. I also already explained how a translation is the Word of God. I’ll be writing more on this in the near future.
If I sat and translated the entire OT and NT into an African tribal language, would my translation, if accurate, be inspired?
“If I sat and translated the entire OT and NT into an African tribal language, would my translation, if accurate, be inspired?”
Never. Since you are just one man.
The Lord God used a group of men to “inspire” the preserved (perfect, infallible) writings. He then used a group of men to “inspire” those writings into the last world language on the earth, English, before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to take his bride home.
If I am wrong about his coming and the world language becomes Chinese, it would have to follow the same methodology as did the translators of the Holy Bible, the King James. After that, then the church of Jesus Christ would have to accept it by using it in preaching and teaching it throughout the world. Then you would know God, by the Holy Spirit, has moved forward to the new inspired text used throughout the world.
Do I believe that will happen? No way.
Anonymous,
I’m just going to let your comment stand on its own. It doesn’t fit any biblical presuppositions as to the inspiration and preservation of scripture. It’s also (ironically) not the a position on the Bible taken by believers down through history.
Hello Anonymous!
You asked me if I thought the KJV was inspired. I answered that question already in a section of the work at:
https://faithsaves.net/learn-greek-hebrew/
indeed, under the very heading that you said that you disagreed with.
Did you read-carefully-the entire study? The questions you ask are already answered there.
If you want me to say more, please let me know that you read the entire study, carefully, first. Re-inventing the wheel is not a good use of time. Thanks.
As I thought, the King James Bible in English is not inspired, but some “Greek text” and “Hebrew text” that uses the “original” language are.
Please confirm the Greek and Hebrew texts which have all the words of God that are inspired, from Genesis to Revelation.
Anonymous,
Some Hebrew text and some Greek text? God gave His Words in Hebrew and Greek. Those Words have been preserved perfectly. God promised He would.
“Those Words have been preserved perfectly. God promised He would.”
I asked KJB1611 (an oxymoron), but he did not give me an answer.
What Greek Bible and/or Hebrew Bible can I find “the perfectly preserved words of God” (that is your quote)?
After studying manuscript evidence years ago, I know of no Greek or Hebrew text that meets that criteria. Please enlighten me since no one that I have read has ever made that argument.
I do know of an English text that is perfectly preserved, inspired by God, the King James Authorized Bible.
Anonymous,
You ask a lot of questions, but you don’t answer them. I believe God preserved every Word in the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus Receptus. These are the received text of the Lord’s churches. Where or how did you study manuscript evidence? Do you know Hebrew and Greek, Anonymous?
What is the perfectly preserved edition of the King James 1611 or 1769?
“What is the perfectly preserved edition of the King James 1611 or 1769?”
A red herring. Both. Currently use the 1768 with updated punctuation and spelling.
You knew that, so why ask?
Anonymous,
I decided to print your last comments, because I can see this is over, which is good. People know where you stand. It represents a certain belief that people misrepresent us as taking, so it is obvious we don’t take your point of view, so that’s a lie.
I want you to consider this, anonymous. God promises the preservation of every word, the ones He gave by inspiration. Every word. I believe that. You say I don’t have that text, which is not true. We still have every Word. We know that in many ways, including these two: through the presupposition that God said He would preserve it, so it’s a matter of faith in what God said, and (2) God leads true believers into all truth, which He did, and we can see that through history.
You, on the other hand, don’t even care that the words of the KJV changed. But if they are changed again apparently after 1769, that’s not changing them, or even though they are different, they are still the same. It’s a warped, corrupted view that denies the doctrine of preservation, essentially based on the same presuppositions as critical text supporters — the denial of preservation.
Dear Anonymous,
When I asked you:
Hello Anonymous!
You asked me if I thought the KJV was inspired. I answered that question already in a section of the work at:
https://faithsaves.net/learn-greek-hebrew/
indeed, under the very heading that you said that you disagreed with.
Did you read-carefully-the entire study? The questions you ask are already answered there.
If you want me to say more, please let me know that you read the entire study, carefully, first. Re-inventing the wheel is not a good use of time. Thanks.
You replied:
As I thought, the King James Bible in English is not inspired, but some “Greek text” and “Hebrew text” that uses the “original” language are.
Your response indicates that you did not take the time to read carefully, much less even look at carefully, the study that I provided for you, since I said exactly the opposite of what your quote said:
“An accurate translation, such as the Authorized, King James Version, has the breath of God, and can properly be termed “inspired” and the “Word of God,” in a derivative sense,[33] because it accurately conveys the teaching of the original language text dictated by the Holy Spirit. …”
and explained in great detail what Scripture teaches on this topic in the footnote in this sentence.
Unfortunately, it is not going to be worthwhile for me to write to you any further unless you actually carefully read and evidence that you have carefully thought about the evidence in the link that I provided.
Thanks.
One final comment, Anonymous–if you have connections to Ruckman’s people, or Riplinger, I would be happy to have a public, moderated debate with a leading Ruckmanite on something like “The King James Bible is superior to the Greek and Hebrew text” where the Ruckmanite could affirm and I could deny. This would have to be with a well-known advocate of Ruckmanism.
“The King James Bible is superior to the Greek and Hebrew text”
It is obviously superior in the sense that it is the only bible that is believed to be inspired and perfect without error and it is used throughout the world to lead men to Jesus Christ and to teach the word of God to his disciples.
And where is the Greek and Hebrew texts used and believed to be inspired and inerrant being preached and taught today except in dead orthodox religious circles who do nothing for the cause of the “afflictions of the gospel” except to glorify themselves and bring honor to their institutions?
“I would be happy to have a public, moderated debate…”
““The King James Bible is superior to the Greek and Hebrew text” would be an excellent debate. That would make me “a well-known advocate of Ruckmanism”.
You send me your terms (the details of the debate framework), and where you want to have it. I will consider your proposition.
Hello Anonymous,
I have no idea who you are, and am not agreeing to debate an anonymous person. Please reach out to Bethel Baptist Church, 4905 Appian Way, El Sobrante, CA 94803, 510-223-9550, or use the “contact us” link at faithsaves.net, if you are a significant advocate of Ruckmanism, and please explain clearly who you are, why people who take your position look to you as a leader on it with a significant following, etc. and then we can see if something can be worked out. I would be happy to debate someone like Sam Gipp or Gail Riplinger who has a significant following. Thanks.
“I would be happy to debate someone like Sam Gipp or Gail Riplinger who has a significant following.”
Well, now that is quite a statement. Just like the world thinks, you want to be “an influencer” that wants a “significant following” in order to make a name for yourself.
Well brother, I am not interested in making a name for myself. I have no following except those that follow the Lord Jesus Christ, and love the manifestation of God as found in the eternal words of the ONLY inspired bible of the last days, the Holy King James Bible.
I am too old to play those games. The church is far into apostacy and really could care less about a debate such as this.
I am going to preach the infallible bible to the world, and teach it those who have “ears to hear”. What they do with it is their business before God.
I know I am right about the book, just like others like me that are all around the world, speaking different languages, yet believing the English King James Bible. I do not have to defend the book, just “preach the word” and the Holy Ghost of God will manifest its power (1 Corinthians 2, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Psalm 12, etc.) and defend “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”.
Take care. You get the last word.
I’ll let Thomas answer, but you are misreading what he’s saying or just misrepresenting it. The purpose of the debate is not two people alone in a room. He also doesn’t want to debate someone who doesn’t know the Ruckman position, but is a kind of spokesman for the position. You should understand that, but you choose the bad motive and purpose.
Hello Anonymous!
If you want to think that the reason I would take the large amount of time in the limited season we have to live to prepare properly to debate Sam Gipp or Ms. Riplinger, but would not take the time to do it for a random person who anonymously insults me on the What is Truth? blog and does not even take the time to read a link that I sent him, and this is because I want to make a name for myself, go ahead. Thanks.