Conservatives say the
Bible used to be inspired and inerrant.
Liberals say it never was inspired or inerrant.
Both agree that the Bible is not now inspired or inerrant.
Modern Bible scholars will often talk and write about the "inspired originals", since the "originals" no longer exist, the scholars and their conjectures replace the Bible as the "the final authority", they replace God's authority with their own.
The Satanic motive behind the abuse, and undermining of the Bible is to establish a final authority other than the Bible.
If the Bible is inspired only in the non-existent original manuscripts, some other authority must be substituted for them, whether that other authority is a revelation, a Book of Mormon, a Creed, or a scholar.
If the Bible is inspired only in the "original languages," only those who claim to know the languages can read it, and then they become the final authority because ignorant "lay people" go to them instead of the Bible. This was the same ruse used by the Catholic Church and its "inspired Latin Vulgate" for fifteen hundred years. Rome, naturally opposed the translation of Gods word into English, they denounced the AV as it was being translated, claiming that God could speak only in the Biblical languages. The translators' response is as valid today as it was in 1611:
". . . we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the . . . translation of the Bible in English . . . containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God: As the king's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the king's speech."
Why would God have bothered to inspire the Bible if only a handful of people would ever be able to benefit from its "inspired form"? To say that the Bible is inspired only in the "original languages" is to say that the Bible is a dead book, because Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek are dead languages, less than two percent of the people who have ever lived would have ever been able to read or understand the Bible (or portions of it) in its "inspired form." The Bible, however, claims to be alive;
For the word of God is quick, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. (1 Pet. 1:23)
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)
If the Bible is inspired only in the "original languages," it is barbaric.
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. (1 Cor. 14:11)
Several times in the Greek New Testament, God throws in some Hebrew or Aramaic and then "interprets" it into Greek so it won't be barbaric (Matt. 1:23, 27:33, Mark 5:41, 15:22, 34, John 1:41-42, 9:7, John 19:17, Acts 9:36, 4:36, 13:8, Heb. 7:1-2.)
If the Bible is inspired only in the original languages, then every Old Testament passage quoted in the New Testament is uninspired, because the New Testament translates them before it quotes them.
According to Isaiah, one characteristic of the inspired word is that it shall accomplish what God pleases:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I send it. (Isaiah 55:11)
What does God desire?
He desires that sinners repent of their sins and get saved (2 Peter 3:9, Luke 14:23), and the preaching of the inspired word accomplishes this (Isa. 55:11, 2 Tim. 3:15). God wants the gospel available to all people who want to receive it.
Does the AV 1611 accomplish what God desires? If it does, the AV 1611 must be inspired, because the word that accomplishes what God desires "goeth forth out of my mouth" (Isaiah 55:11).
Some argue that the AV 1611 could not be inspired, because it were it would mean that the King James translators would have been just as "inspired" as the "original writers." The Bible, however, does not say that the Biblical writers were inspired, it says that the writers of the bible "were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:21). Only the Bible itself is inspired. If Paul or Solomon were inspired, then everything they wrote would be scripture; it isn't. Just as God can use saved sinners to record His word, so He can use saved sinners to translate His word.
If the Bible is inspired only in the original languages, you had better start learning those languages as quickly as you can, because Jesus said:
...man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4, see also Luke 4:4).
If the present day copies are not inspired, then neither were the originals, because inspiration can no more produce non-inspiration than a fig tree can produce olive berries (James 3:12). If we do not have an inspired Bible today, our religion is no different from any other religion. If the Bible is not inspired, it is no different from the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or any other book which is not inspired. Why would God inspire the original manuscripts only to lose them and not preserve the Words He inspired.
Scribes were known to have destroyed worn out MSS after they had copied them, therefore, the original autographs have long been lost, but, because the early church valued the words of the original more than the original itself, the readings of the originals must be preserved with us somewhere, or else God's words have "passed away" which we know cannot happen. (Psalms 12:6-7 and Matthew 24:35).
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:14-17)
Notice that Paul admonished Timothy to continue (v.14) in the holy scriptures that he has known since he was a child (v.15), yet, all Timothy had were copies and translations of the original Hebrew texts. Paul refers to these copies as holy scriptures. The Bible-believing Christian agrees that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16), whereas the modern conservative scholar believes it "was" given. Nowhere in the verse will you find a verb in the past tense. The inspiration of the Bible is present tense - NOW. It is alive and breathing. Timothy did not own the original manuscripts of the Old Testament books, yet the scriptures which he owned were inspired!
No one has ever owned a complete Bible made up of the "divine originals." Nor has anyone ever owned a complete New Testament made up of "inspired originals" Only Moses ever saw the original of "the two tables of testimony" (Exodus 31, 32). The "original manuscripts" of Exodus, then, did not contain the "original autograph" of the ten commandments. And how did God decide which of the seven churches in Asia Minor would receive the "divine original" of Revelation and which six would have to settle for "uninspired" copies of the original? What was so special about Philemon and Gaius that God would give them inspired copies of New Testament epistles but not give them to all Christian believers? What was so special about the carnal church at Corinth that God gave it two inspired epistles?
How much value does God put on the originals? To get the answer let us explore several chapters in the book of Jeremiah beginning with chapter 36 concerning the roll that Jeremiah had written.
In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read by his servant Jehudi. According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and King Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on the hearth until it was destroyed. That is the end of original #1.
Then the Lord moved Jeremiah to rewrite the roll adding some words to it.(Jeremiah 36:32), so original #2 is born.
The text of this second original is reproduced for our benefit in Jeremiah 45-51. Jeremiah told Seraiah to read this roll when he came into Babylon (Jeremiah 51:59-61). Then Jeremiah instructed Seraiah, after he finished reading the roll, to bind a stone to it and cast it into the Euphrates river (Jeremiah 51:63). That is the end of original #2.
We have a copy of the text of the roll in chapters 45-51, which came from a copy of original #2, which we can only call original #3. Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second" original, or original #3.
God did not have any interest in preserving the "original" once it had been copied and its message delivered. Preserving the words of the original was more important than the original itself, so why should we put more of an emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is plainly unscriptural.
There are hundreds of counterfeit versions of the Bible in existence today, but they are not true to the original. The only Version of the Bible in English which God is responsible for is the King James Bible (AV 1611).
A study of the "interpretation" of the Hebrew written on the wall, found in Daniel 5, sheds much light on the "Bible issue".
When Daniel and the other Hebrew youths were brought into Babylon, they were trained in the use of "the tongue of the Chaldeans" (Daniel 1:4). Even though every Jew in Belshazzar's court was completely fluent in his native Hebrew and his adopted Aramaic, only Daniel could "interpret" the Hebrew written on the wall; in the same way, years of study of "Biblical languages" do not of themselves qualify a man to "interpret" the Bible, because "interpretations belong to God" (Genesis 40:8).
For clarity, God's translation added words not found in "the original", like the King James translators italicized words in the AV 1611, and God withheld His judgment until Belshazzar had heard the word in his own language.
God will provide the translation that He wants, at the hands of the men whom He has proven, any other translation is a "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Alexander W. McClure in The Translators Revived noted,
"It was well remarked by Robertson, above a hundred years ago, that it [the King James Bible] may serve as a Lexicon of the Hebrew language, as well as for a translation" (The Translators Revived: A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible, New York: Board of Publications of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 1855, p.239).
The King James Bible is as much a lexicon on the biblical languages as any other lexicon. The best biblical linguists who have ever lived applied their minds and their prayers to translating into English precisely what the Hebrew and Greek text mean.
You can use whatever tools you can find, the lexicons, the grammars, the dictionaries, the topicals, and the encyclopedias, inasmuch as they are faithful to the Word of God, but do not be deceived into thinking that the wording of the King James Bible is some sort of secondary witness to the meaning of the Biblical text. To run, say, to Vine or to Thayer or to Brown, and to accept the interpretation of one man as to the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word while slighting the deliberated and agreed interpretation of the best biblical linguists who have ever lived is not wise. The King James Bible is the preserved Word of God.
Beware of preachers, teachers, and scholars that say: "What this means in the original Greek/Hebrew"; "a better translation would be"; "the Greek/Hebrew actually says . . .". The passages referred to are usually clear to begin with, and the word/words in question can be explained by any good dictionary. What they are usually trying to do is to get rid of some distasteful doctrine, or set up scholarship as a final authority, or just try to make themselves appear knowledgeable. The Greek/Hebrew word or passage in question means exactly what the King James translators said it means. It is important to explain and interpret Bible words, but it is never wise to correct or criticize those words and to try to replace them with one's own private translation (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Jeremiah 36 records that King Jehoiakim dared to destroy the word of the Lord. God punished the defiance of King Jehoiakim by removing him from the genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew 1:11 records only Josias and Jechonias, the father and son of Jehoiakim. Revelation 22:18,19 warns that the identical judgment will befall others who presume to change the Holy Writ.
For those that delete what is not desired, and replace it with what is desired, like those who corrupt the Word of God with their private translations and counterfeit versions of the Bible, I leave you with the last warning God gave us in His Word:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19)
Back To Home Page
Back To King James Controversy