In the history of Christian doctrine, true believers through the centuries have been in general consistent in their position on inspiration. When reading historical bibliological material, homogeneity exists. Changes emerged with modernism in the 19th century and then many novel, false beliefs sprouted up. In many cases, men invented new, wrong positions on inspiration in response to other erroneous ones, a kind of pendulum swing.
Summary
To begin here, I will summarize what I have written so far in this series. God inspired sacred scripture over 1600 years, using 40 human authors. John Owen wrote concerning human authors:
God was with them, and by the Holy Spirit spoke in them — as to their receiving of the Word from him, and their delivering it to others by speaking or writing — so that they were not themselves enabled, by any habitual light, knowledge, or conviction of truth, to declare his mind and will, but only acted as they were immediately moved by him. Their tongue in what they said, or their hand in what they wrote, was no more at their own disposal than the pen in the hand of an expert writer.
God breathed a product of almost entirely Hebrew and some Aramaic Old Testament and completely Greek New Testament letters and words. Then He used His institutions, Israel and the church to keep those words, preserve and distribute them. The London Baptist Confession reads:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Immediate Inspiration
And Remain Inspired in Copies
The inspiration of the “original manuscripts” believers called “immediate inspiration,” to distinguish from ongoing inspiration of preserved words and accurate translations of the preserved words. The preserved words and readings, “the original texts,” remained inspired. Francis Turretin wrote:
By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
“Apographs” are the copies of the original manuscripts or the copies of the copies. What about a translation from the preserved, inspired original text? Is that inspired?
And Remain Inspired in Accurate Translations
In the last post (the third one), I showed 1 Timothy 5:18 among other places in the New Testament indicates that an accurate translation is scripture. An accurate translation as sacred scripture remains inspired. This is seen in Peter’s preaching in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. Peter used Psalms 16, 110, and Joel 2 in the sermon. The audience heard those translated to Parthian, Mede, Elamite, Mesopotamian, Cappadocian, Pontus, Asian, Phrygian, Pamphylian, Egyptian, Libyan, Cyrene, Latin, Cretan and Arabian (Acts 2:9-11).
Supportive Materials
Rather than quote and write about the same thing that Jon Gleason already wrote, I point you to his post on the subject of the continued inspiration of a translation. I will, however, reproduce two quotes from A. W. Pink he used:
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). . . . .
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).
He also refers to a journal article, written in 1982 by Edward W. Goodrick that mirrors Pink and others who predated B. B. Warfield. You should also read the article by Thomas Ross, entitled “Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, “given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version.” For many biblical reasons, one should consider an accurate translation of the preserved original text to be inspired and sacred scripture.
Conclusion
Because of erroneous views of double inspiration and English preservationism today, I advocate the terminology, “immediately inspired,” and just for more clarity, “derivative inspiration.” Perhaps best, one should say “given by inspiration of God” and then continued inspiration in preserved original texts and accurate translations of those texts. I consider the King James Version the inspired Word of God.
Kent, I’m not sure I’m qualified to be an authority on this, but I’m honored by the link and the comments.
Obviously, I don’t agree with everything Pink wrote, but he’s excellent on inspiration.
I like your concluding paragraph.
“I consider the King James Version the inspired Word of God.”
Therefore, why even use Greek or Hebrew to prove anything except to teach a historical preservation of the inspired English text?
Why use them in any teaching or preaching except to create confusion to the English grammatical construct or the English definition of words in the context which they are found?
Anonymous,
The translation is inspired insofar that it says what the original text says. It can’t say something different and us say, God inspired that. No, God inspired what He said. Our understanding of the translation must accord with what He said.
On top of this, you have a way different view of inspiration that what I’ve written about here, a false one, that doesn’t accord with either what the Greek says or the King James Version ironically.
You wrote:
“On top of this, you have a way different view of inspiration that what I’ve written about here, a false one, that doesn’t accord with either what the Greek says or the King James Version ironically.”
Paul wrote about “plainness of speech”. You seem to go around in circles and are not making any sense to me after you wrote, “I consider the King James Version the inspired Word of God.”
If the King James Bible is inspired, what does “insofar that it says what the original text says” mean?
That is a contradiction in terms.
Please explain yourself.
Anonymous,
I would be very angry at myself if I commented to you, like you do to us. Not necessarily in this order, but, one, the King James Version was not “given by inspiration of God.” The whole Bible was given in the first century. All truly converted people believed that, including the King James Version translators. Two, There is a difference with inspiration of those original manuscripts and an accurate translation of copies. Believers have distinguished that by calling the original manuscripts “immediately inspired.” More than that, Hebrew and Greek words are not the same as English words. Three, everything that you say you don’t understand is found at least in the articles by Jon Gleason and by Thomas Ross. I don’t think you’ve read those article. At least the Gleason article and series is not that long. It is very plain to say, immediate inspiration and then derivative inspiration. Those divisions were made in part for people who deny the preservation of scripture, like you, and for those who take an unscriptural double inspiration position, like you. Four, I have said that what God inspired, preserved perfectly in copies, and then is accurately translated continues to be inspired. Continued inspiration of accurate translations of preserved copies, any and all of them.
Kent wrote:
1> “The whole Bible was given in the first century. ”
No, the whole Bible was not “given” as inspired scripture in the first century, unless you believe that inspired scripture was all written in the Greek Septuagint which if it really existed as a whole was a 3rd century document. I do believe that all the scriptures (NT and OT) where compiled in different forms (Hebrew, Greek, Latin) during that time.
Do I have absolute proof of that? No.
2> “All truly converted people believed that, including the King James Version translators”
That does not prove anything since you have no idea what the first century church believed. All you have are manuscripts and letters of church fathers that quoted very little of the whole bible.
It does not matter what the translators believed as a whole (from the church of England but beliefs in doctrine varied), it only matters if they were translating the manuscripts (Greek and Hebrew), source documents like the Geneva Bible, and other Latin manuscripts they knew were “given by inspiration of God”.
3> There is a difference with inspiration of those original manuscripts and an accurate translation of copies. Believers have distinguished that by calling the original manuscripts “immediately inspired.”
Never heard the term “immediately inspiration” concerning the “originals”. Again, you say, an “accurate” translation rather than an infallible and perfect translation (which would add another term called precise). You can be accurate, but not precise or precise but not accurate.
So, how can inspiration of the copies of scriptures be only accurate?
The view of bible believers is that the English King James Bible are not only accurate, but precise, therefore infallible and without any proven error, for “thank we God without ceasing, because, 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”.
We believe this by the faith of what is written “in the scriptures”. We do not have to care about all the historical perspectives that confuse the issue and that has sent the church into apostacy, but we put our faith in the Word, the word of God, the words of God and can lead a believer to one book that contains all the inspired scripture given by inspiration that they can trust forever for all matters of faith and practice!
They do not need to run to the 7,000 + manuscripts to figure it out. It is finished by which the Holy Ghost has put its seal upon it by the church that has been preaching it for over 400 years.
I will continue this discussion later.
Anonymous,
I could have done a better job of writing my comment or edited it before publishing it, but when I wrote that the entire Bible was written in the first century, it’s true, but I should have communicated it better, that is, its writing was completed in the first century. That’s what I meant.
It does matter that all Christians believed something. It matters first what the Bible teaches, but second what true Christians believed. The Holy Spirit indwells believers, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ’s church.
I don’t know what you mean by “precise” compared to accurate. I think the KJV translators are accurate, but I think they could have translated it in a different way and also been accurate. That’s how translation works. You think that too or else you couldn’t simultaneously believe in a perfect 1611 and then perfect 1769 edition.
The church at Thessalonica received the original manuscripts and perfect copies of the original languages, not an English translation.
Your position isn’t one of true faith, because it isn’t based on scripture. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. What you call faith on this issue comes from some kind of warped human logic.
Your argument of the church using it for 400 years contradicts what you said earlier about churches believing something scriptural. Churches used the KJV for 400 years because it was an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved original text.
4> “More than that, Hebrew and Greek words are not the same as English words.”
We all understand that, but what does that have to do with inspired words of a translation?
As I have pointed out in another part, that there are translations from Genesis to Revelation in any current Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.
5> “Those divisions were made in part for people who deny the preservation of scripture, like you, and for those who take an unscriptural double inspiration position”
I do not deny the preservation of scripture. Where did you get that from? What I deny is the importance of them. They are now on the shelf ever since the inspired text found in the English King James Bible is where God and his church has moved to.
I keep asking you, but you deny to answer. Where are the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or full Greek bibles (Beza, Schrivener or Erasmus) being used today to call men to repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ? What church preaches or teaches in Greek or Hebrew unless they used it to change the word of God?
Just because you play word games with immediate
6> “I have said that what God inspired, preserved perfectly in copies, and then is accurately translated continues to be inspired”
Just because you use terms like immediate and derivate inspiration that the bible does not use, does not give you a position to call what I believe teaches of scriptural inspiration as double inspiration. You do that to give some glory to the original text that God never does! God’s inspiration is exactly the same as the originals or any other biblical scriptures (translations) that the church used throughout time.
To prove a point, please tell me where the King James translators get the 2nd clause in brackets as found in 1 John 2:23 at the time of the translation?
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
The last clause that begins with (but) was all italicized because they did not find it any of the Greek “TR” manuscripts at that time. I believe they found it in a Latin translation and later it was found in the 4th edition of Beza.
So, was that italicized clause not inspired since it was not even found in the TR until later?
Please explain.
God preserved the very words perfectly, which were Hebrew and Greek.
You wrote, “As I have pointed out in another part, that there are translations from Genesis to Revelation in any current Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.”—I don’t get what that is saying.
The original texts, perfectly preserved copies, are not on the shelf. People use them every day in study. They’re still being used for translations as well.
People use accurate translations of the perfectly preserved original text. They also study from the original text for meaning or interpretation.
2 Tim 3:16 in the KJV says, “given by inspiration of God.” That is immediate inspiration. It’s not a word game. That language is in the WCF, LBC, and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession. God’s Words were given by inspiration of God and continue inspired in perfectly preserved copies and accurate translations of those copies.
Your view is different than a biblical and historical view. It is new and false. Men identify it as double inspiration. One could call it something else.
The KJV translators didn’t think they possessed an original language text of certain verses, so they were making note of that with the use of italics and without removing it. However, the full text of 1 John 2:23 is in 1598. Beza didn’t italicize it in his Latin translation.
Beza 1598 predates the KJV. Manuscripts from which Beza printed that text predated Beza.