For a few weeks, I’ve been laying out my own personal objections to commonly held views amongst Independent Baptists. I’ve given my wish list in twos up to now. But to keep within a readable word count, I find that I must give you a single point in this article, the seventh of ten things I wish would change among Independent Baptists.
The King James Only controversy is probably the most heated and passionate of all our disputes, both within the IFB and without. Even among those who call themselves King James Only, there are a variety of meanings and heaps of fire all around. For example, the KJV Churches website uses seven categories, five of which refer to varying degrees of commitment to the King James Bible. Our church is listed as “Use KJV.” Other churches are listed as “KJV Inspired,” “KJV Position Undeclared,” “KJV Preserved,” “KJV Preferred,” or simply “KJV.” I couldn’t find any definitions for these various positions, nor could I find any explanation of the differences. I’m unsure how they concluded that we “Use” the KJV (as opposed to these other positions). But I don’t dispute it either.
Perhaps we earned that tag because of what I am about to say. The historic view of preservation has been set down in some of the old confessions of faith, including this statement from the London Baptist Confession of 1689:
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;
This statement contradicts a significant error, often repeated among Independent Baptists. I speak of…
English preservationism
God has preserved His Words – the graphe of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16) as written in the Word of God. We have no good reason to doubt this. But I hear entirely too much confusion on this topic coming from the mouths of Independent Baptists, and much of it born of ignorance.
Once upon a time, we had a man in our church who believed – quite dogmatically – that in 1611, the Bible was perfected, that the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New had been unreliable up to that point, the Bible had gone through a sixteen hundred year refining process, and that post-1611, God allowed the Hebrew and Greek to pass into oblivion.
At the time, I thought this was crackpot, whack-a-doodle, somewhere in outer space. And, I thought it could be answered quite simply. Preservation didn’t begin in 1611. Nothing in the Bible would teach or lead us to look for such a thing. But as we discussed his harebrained opinion, I learned that turning rock into water would be easier than changing his mind. Through the years, I have discovered that many of those who take up the mantle of being King James Only hold this man’s position, with a few variants.
Many readers of this blog hold a high view of the King James. So do I. But a high view of the King James Version doesn’t require you to go beyond Scripture. And while many believe that upholding the King James requires us to think that it is inspired, this idea could not be further from the truth.
In reality, this claim demonstrates a very low view of inspiration. Any suggestion that the words of God were unreliable until sometime after 1611 shows a meager opinion of Scripture. It denies the Biblical teaching on preservation. The view that after 1611, the Bible was preserved in English rather than in Greek and Hebrew is a dismantling and discarding of the Biblical teaching on preservation.
If the King James is the only perfect Bible or the only place where we can find a perfectly preserved Word of God, then all the passages you look to as proof texts for preservation are wrong. Because these passages teach preservation as a present reality – present at the time of writing – not as a distant promise. Consider a few of the more commonly used verses.
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:6-7)
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)
No matter how hard you try, you can’t fit a 1600-year gap into a Biblical doctrine of preservation. You can’t argue that the Hebrew and Greek have “passed into oblivion” and simultaneously uphold these verses on preservation. When Jesus promised that not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all was fulfilled, He certainly didn’t have the English in mind. Nor would His disciples have thought that referred to some other language than Hebrew.
We cannot claim “inspiration” for the King James Bible unless we water down the meaning of inspiration. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, all Scripture is theopneustos – given by inspiration of God. All Scripture is God-breathed. To quote the London Baptist Confession, the Hebrew and Greek are immediately inspired by God.
Over the years, I have had some very novel arguments thrown at me to make it possible for theopneustos to apply to the English Bible. If I had to boil those arguments down, I would identify three basic claims. First, some believe flat-out that God gave the King James by direct inspiration – that just as “holy men of God spake as they were moved of the Holy Ghost,” even so, the translators of the King James Bible were directly inspired by the Holy Ghost. Many don’t go quite this far. Instead, they argue that God providentially guided the translators so that they gave a perfect rendering of the Hebrew and Greek. Third, I’ve heard a few variations of this argument, stated as a syllogism: the King James Bible is Scripture, and all Scripture is given by inspiration; therefore, the King James is given by inspiration.
Now, the third claim is a blatant case of equivocation. Paul didn’t have the King James Bible in mind when he claimed inspiration for the graphe. Nor can we make such a claim without simultaneously making this same argument for any faithful translation of Scripture. To argue this, one must say that the English versions that pre-dated the King James were also inspired. This sort of argument creates a monstrosity that goes far beyond double inspiration. It is to say that God has re-inspired His Word dozens of times, given the number of faithful translations we can find in other languages.
The first claim, that the King James was directly inspired by God, is straight-up double inspiration. We cannot make such a claim without saying that the original writings of Scripture were re-written in 1611. This would mean that God’s Word is not forever settled. And furthermore, if God did this in 1611, we can anticipate that He could do it again should the Lord tarry until, say, the year 2317. We would need some Biblical proof that, given the passing of time and the emergence of new languages, God would do this with His Word. The Bible never hints at such a thing.
The second claim is probably the most pervasive among Independent Baptists. But “providential guidance” waters down the meaning of theopneustos. The Bible doesn’t claim inspiration for the writers of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 claims inspiration – theopneustos – for the graphe: the writings of Scripture. Yes, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But that isn’t theopneustos.
We can claim “providential guidance” for many things. I think we can see God’s guiding hand in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (but they are not inspired). I believe God guides me providentially as I prepare and preach my Sunday sermons and even as I write this blog article. And because I believe in the exhaustive sovereignty of God, I can’t think of anything that occurs in our world, for good or for evil, that would fall outside the realm of Divine Providence.
To claim then that God providentially guided the translators of the King James, one must either say that this would also apply to every other English translation of the Bible, or one must say that God uniquely guided in the giving of the King James, which would be to make the first claim – that the King James was directly inspired by God. I assume those who claim providential guidance for the King James are trying to avoid the charge of double inspiration.
Here’s why this matters. I frequently hear Independent Baptists balk at any reference to the Greek or Hebrew. We tend to be uncomfortable with detailed analysis of the Greek, especially if we delve into Greek grammar. I have had more than a few people object to my use of Greek and Hebrew, suspecting that I might be a “Bible corrector.”
If the King James is the only Bible, then yes, we should ignore the Greek altogether. But to believe this, we must also think that the Bible dropped down to earth in 1611, with no connection whatsoever to any previous literature known as the Bible. This would be false, of course. If we believe that the King James Bible is downstream from the words God immediately inspired, then of course it is good to take a look at the source, to reference the inspired, preserved words, so we can get at the full meaning of the passage.
Perhaps this will serve as a test for you, whether or not you have embraced a kind of default double-inspirationism. If you think any detailed analysis of the Greek or Hebrew qualifies as “correcting” the Bible, you have fallen into the trap of English preservationism.
The King James Bible is a treasure to English-speaking people. By God’s grace, it has been used to spread God’s Word and His gospel worldwide. It is a faithful rendering in English of the words of God. It is a gift to humanity and has played a vital role in preserving Scripture.
But, we still have the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New. God has preserved the words He immediately inspired. When we have questions about the nuance of the King James, why wouldn’t we consider the meaning and use of the words God immediately inspired? Why should we look at Webster’s 1828 and ignore the words God gave? It is a blessing to have the Bible in English. And among the English Bibles on the market, the King James dwarfs them all. But we shouldn’t claim for it what God never promised, what we have no reason to believe.
The Village Smithy 
I loved this article and can say that I completely agree with your stance on it. Was nice to see that someone out there feels much as I do on the subject. Definitely earned a follow today and I look forward to reading more of your posts. Good day and God Bless
LikeLiked by 1 person
You wrote—
“The Bible doesn’t claim inspiration for the writers of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 claims inspiration – theopneustos – for the graphe: the writings of Scripture. Yes, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But that isn’t theopneustos.”
…Ummm???? …WHAT???? …please explain…
Also, you wrote—
“But, we still have the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New. God has preserved the words He immediately inspired.”
…Could you PLEASE tell me which Bible, containing both the OT — written in the original Hebrew—and the NT—written in the original Greek— is THE One that I can put my hands on & know that It is THE inspired, preserved Word of God… (ie: which singular TR, still in existence today, is “THE TR”, without any error, or omission)???
LikeLike
God breathed the words of Scripture.
As for the 2nd, this is the exact same question I get from everyone who embraces the Critical Text.
No 2 editions of the King James are exactly the same, similar to the editions of the TR. I am confident when I hold any edition of the TR that I am holding THE inspired, preserved Word of God without error or omission. Same for the Masoretic Hebrew.
LikeLike
Yep… they pegged you, correctly— you only “use the KJV”…
LikeLike
Very well done, Dave. Forthright and clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would question which Greek text? I have 5 different ones, and there are at least 6other ones besides.
The KJB was a translation of a compilation of bibles and texts, 1 Jn 5:7 who’s to say they used the Greek there and not the Germen or Spanish? I think we have taken the word inspired and twisted it into something else the Bible does not mean. The difference from the etymology of the word from the philology of the word.
LikeLike
In Acts 8, I think this Ethiopian Eunuch had a reliable copy of the jewish scriptures. I think also that Phillip also had confidence in this copy because he used them to preach Jesus to this eunuch. Why do people have a problem with believing that God has preserved His Word even if it’s just a reliable copy of the inspired scriptures? Hebrews 11: 6 says it’s impossible to please God without faith.
LikeLike
The word “Bible” means “Book”…
In short, what Dave Mallinak is admitting, here, is that he does not believe that ANY Bible written-translated-copied into English to be inspired, nor preserved— but rather, he places his trust in a compilation of worn, faded & fading MSS, and the various TR editions, etc., written & rewritten in Greek— as if God promised only to preserve His Word in the “original languages”—and anything written in said Greek is more trustworthy than any Scriptures written in English… Yet, he admits that there is NO singular Book(Bible) which contains both the OT and NT, bound in one volume, that he can call THE Bible—The Book of God. (Believing that God only promised to preserve the “originals”, DM doesn’t have faith in any one (Book) “Bible”, today, but rather, he has placed his faith in the various compilations of Greek Texts(TR), MSS, etc.— which are scantily available, today— yet, even if one obtains these variations of the TR, the fact is, that NONE of these are in perfect agreement with themselves)… and, by default, if “only Hebrew & Greek can be classified as ‘inspired & preserved’…”— then, this sets up the “scholars” of said Greek and Hebrew to become the “linguistic priests” over the “simple laity”, and all of the non-speaking Greek/Hebrew people must acquiesce to these “high priests of linguistics”… (no doubt, this is the enjoyable position that said “scholars” would love to hold— thus, the applause & affirmation from the likes of said, “linguistics high priest, Mark Ward”…)
According to his own logic, Dave Mallinak doesn’t have a perfect Bible (singular Book). He cannot hold in one hand, THE Word of God. When he steps behind his pulpit, he takes with him “the closest he could find”—rather than God’s PERFECT Word. He asks his congregation to open up “the best they’ve got”—rather than THE Bible… Truly, he only “USES the KJV”…
When he preaches from the “best we could find English Bible”— who ultimately becomes the Final Authority? …Who or what should his congregation take comfort and assurance from— a “close rendering of The Book”—or, his own opinions & those of the “scholars” & commentators —or, rather, do they KNOW with confidence that they have THE Bible in their hands? (One can only feel sorry for such a congregation)…
When he encourages students to attend “Bible college”, is he really just sending these students off to “the best we could find”—college? (Imagine paying thousands of dollars per year— only to learn more from a “fairly accurate translation”!)…
When Mallinak says— “When Jesus promised that not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all was fulfilled, He certainly didn’t have the English in mind.”
Hmmm… isn’t Jesus—God, The WORD — and, doesn’t He always have EVERYTHING in mind??!! Certainly, Jesus (God) saw our day, and He knew of something called, “English”, before anyone else could have, and of a future king named, “James”— and certainly God knew that one day He would manipulate this king (Prov 21:1) to authorize the translation and compilation of all of the most faithful MSS into one volume— thus, in these last days, providing for His Church(es) the ability to carry in one hand, His Perfect Word! (And, certainly without coincidence, He has also allowed English to be the dominating language of the world, for the last several centuries— NOT, Hebrew & Greek)…
When Jesus spoke of “jots and tittles”, He did so because—in that day, His Word (OT) was written in Hebrew (if Jesus was using Greek scriptures, then why didn’t He refer to an “iota”?)… Today, in understanding what Jesus meant by the “jots and tittles”, the English speaking man needs mainly to understand the importance of His promise to preserve every part of His Word—but, NOT necessarily the Hebrew and Greek MSS!
It’s sad… but apparently, Dave Mallinak cannot believe that we have a Perfect Bible(God’s Book=in a single volume) in English… very sad!
LikeLike
Not true Matt. I have absolute confidence in the King James. I don’t have to believe false things about it in order to believe that it is the faithful word of God.
The real problem here is that you believe (apparently) that God can’t keep the words He gave, that He had to give new words a century and a half after the canon was closed.
LikeLike
No, Dave… the accusation is true… You do NOT have A singular Book,— A Bible, in English, that you consider to be the inspired &/or preserved Word of God. You do not consider the English Bible to be “Scripture” , and by your own admission (see your other previous comments to me, above) your confidence is NOT in the English Bible, but rather, you trust in the various Greek texts (and not even one single collated volume, either) that you might have in a collection on a shelf, somewhere… .earlier, You said— “I am confident when I hold any edition of the TR that I am holding THE inspired, preserved Word of God without error or omission. Same for the Masoretic Hebrew.“…
Are you, Dave Mallinak, as confident in the English Bible?
No. You are not— by your own definition— any Bible in English is NOT “Scripture” …2Tim 3:16… and, according to your own beliefs—neither you nor your followers are reading “Scripture” in church, and if I believed what you believe— I’d drop everything else and immediately teach my family and church family how to read in Hebrew & Greek— as well as how to obtain the “originals”… (see: 2Timothy 3:14-17 & Matthew 4:4) … because, if I really do need every word, (and I do), but they’re only accessible in the “originals”, then I must do this for me & my people!
When you say “Scriptures”— YOU are NOT referring to anything that one can read in English— and your people are not reading the inspired-preserved Scriptures— thus, according to your own words, you do NOT have a single volume of the Scriptures, in English… so, be honest about what are you “confident” in…
You do NOT believe in any singular Book-Bible as being the inspired – preserved English Scripture!
LikeLike
Your comment reminds me of the guy who wrote in his notes, “weak point – yell here.”
You don’t believe God has kept the words he gave. I do.
LikeLike
2 Timothy 3:16 is in context of 3:15, talking about Timothy’s childhood copies of scripture, not the originals.
When 2 Timothy was written, these are what scriptures that were available:
Hebrew in the Temple
Aramaic targums in the Jewish synagogues, a translation
Greek Septuagint in Hellenistic synagogues, a Greek translation of the Old Testament
So it must refer to Hebrew in the Temple right? The originals??
Except the Hebrew manuscripts in the Temple weren’t originals. They weren’t even the Hebrew that Moses and Samuel had. Moses had hieroglyphic Proto Sinaitic Hebrew. Samuel had to translate it to Paleo-Hebrew. Ezra had to translate Samuel’s Hebrew to Aramaic Hebrew. The gap between Samuel’s Hebrew and Ezra’s Hebrew is farther than the gap between German and English. English is a Germanic language, but you would never say German is English. It’s only called Hebrew because Hebrews used it.
So
The context of 2 Timothy 3:16 is actually in context of INSPIRED TRANSLATIONS. There is no verse that says originals are inspired in context. (Peter’s passage is about prophecy, not inspiration, of the SPOKEN originals, oral tradition, not the written originals).
My point is, the whole assumption basis of your belief is false.
LikeLike
So, all translations are inspired? Or just one? Is the Septuagint? The Latin Vulgate? The Bishop’s Bible? Luther’s German Bible?
LikeLike
Jews thought the Septuagint was inspired. The Septuagint translators (the original Septuagint that was the five books of Moses) were a cohort from Ezra’s scribes. Jewish doctrine on inspiration is much in line with what I said. Jerome’s Vulgate has some marks of inspiration, for example, it is the first Bible to have 66 books, the first physical Bible to have both Testaments and Revelation (the Codexes infamously did not have Revelation, which is what contains the sealing of the canon), and also fulfills Isaiah 34, God will divide His book into lines, “verse” is Latin for “line” and the Vulgate is the first Bible to have that. This modern idea of once-and-done inspiration is from Greek philosophy. Which is only fitting for the word settled in heaven, but not anything earthly.
In contrast, Hebrew and Jewish models of inspiration is one of evolution, improvement, adaptation, over time, on earth. The same type of earthly perfection Jesus had when growing in stature and wisdom on earth. The same type of perfection Job was called and others in scripture. In this model, the King James is the final evolution. The end is better than the beginning. This once-and-done perfect original only appeared in the heavens, the Platonic realm, and people project heavenly perfection to earthly manifestations. Jesus didn’t appear as a one-and-done angel. The originals we deal with on earth is typified by Adam, the original human God inspired or breathed into. On this earth, we don’t look for the original Adam, we look for the Last Adam, for that is how earthly perfection works.
But ultimately, when one actually studies Bible history and transmission, this originals-only junk doesn’t hold up. People think what Bible they think the highest to be original, whether the KJV, or the Septuagint, or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts they have – none of those are original. It’s just faith and feeling to identify any of those to be original, when they are ultimately all translations. This is the error of both KJVOs and anti-KJVOs – none of what they hold are the originals of any sort.
LikeLike
So, Dave Mallinak “would go with any TR…” The man really does not believe in an inerrant “Bible”— a singular Book—one volume, containing both the OT & NT— that he considers inspired&preserved.
Dave, which TR (below) are the true “preserved” words of God that you are referring to???
Stephanos 1550 Greek text versus Scrivener’s (TBS) 1894 Greek text.
Stephanos actually came out with 4 different Greek editions, 1546, 1549, 1550 and in 1551, all with slight variations.
There are some 283 textual differences between these two texts. Most are quite minor, but a few are fairly significant.
Luke 17:36 “TWO MEN SHALL BE IN THE FIELD; THE ONE SHALL BE TAKEN, AND THE OTHER LEFT.” In Scrivener but Stephanos completely omits the entire verse.
See the article on this verse here –
https://brandplucked.com/luke1736scripture.htm
In Romans 12:11 we read: Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit, serving the LORD.
However Stephanos reads “serving THE TIME.” Hardly any bible follows this reading.
Matthew 2:11 we read: “And when they were come into the house, they SAW the young child”,(Beza, Scrivener) but Stephanos says “they FOUND the young child.”
Mark 15:3 KJB – “the chief priests accused him of many things; BUT HE ANSWERED HIM NOTHING.” Stephanos omits these capitalized words.
Luke 1:35 – “that holy thing that shall be born OF THEE shall be called the Son of God.” Scrivener, Beza 1598, but Stephanos omits the words OF THEE.
See the article on this here –
https://brandplucked.com/luke135thatholything.htm
John 8:6 KJB Scrivener – “But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, AS THOUGH HE HEARD THEM NOT.”
Stephanos omits these words.
See the article on John 8:6 here –
John 8:6 “as though he heard them not.”
https://brandplucked.com/john86heheardnot.htm
Revelation 16:5 – KJB, Scrivener – “Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast AND SHALT BE, because thou hast judged thus.”
But Stephanos 1550 has – “…art, and wast and THE HOLY ONE, because these things thou didst judge.”
See the article on Revelation 16:5 here –
https://brandplucked.com/rev165andshaltbe.htm
Which Bible, Dave Mallinak? …Which Book?
Which singular volume is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
LikeLike
Scriveners
LikeLike
You now say— Scrivener?
Are you backtracking your previous statements.?
Previous statement Any TR.
Revised statement – Scrivener’s 1894.
Is that your final answer?
Your official “TR”?
Your Final Authority?
…Scrivener?
LikeLike
Which Bible, Dave Mallinak? …Which “Book”?
Which singular volume is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
According to you, only the Hebrew & Greek are inspired (and preserved)… thus, according to your own reasoning, only those texts are actual “scripture”…
Since “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, then, according to your own definition—you don’t have ANY English scripture. On Sunday, you won’t be teaching or preaching from the Scriptures — instead, you will “use the KJV” (the KJV churches website pegged you, accurately) and from English, you will try to “convey the Scriptures” to your audience… and, according to your own classification of “Scriptures”, your audience will not have the Scriptures in their lap, nor will they be able to take the Scriptures back home with them— (unless they understand Hebrew & Greek, of course)—no, according to you, the best they’ll have is only an “English rendering” of the inspired & preserved “Scriptures”…
Dave, if “Bob, the electrician”, in your church came to you and asked, “I just read where Jesus said, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God.’ Pastor Mallinak, where can I find, in my language, a Bible that has EVERY Word of God that I can read for myself and use to point my family to Christ?” — What would your answer be, Dave?
Pastor Dave Mallinak, if you were given the ultimatum between keeping your library of books, commentaries, TR editions, MSS, etc., etc. — or, to hold onto the King James Bible— I have little doubt that you would let them take the KJB from you, and cling to the rest… Why? Because that is what you have indicated over the past several months— that you do not believe in the English Bible (a singular volume—OT & NT) as being as authoritative as what you have on your library shelves.
You believe & trust in the various texts of Hebrew & Greek that you have compiled, more than in the King James Bible, yet, on Sunday, you will once again carry that “less than inspired” English “version” up to the pulpit with you— leaving the inspired-preserved texts on your shelves & PC program, and attempt to preach/teach from something that you don’t actually appreciate—as much as the texts in your office and on your computer…
*Fortunately, whether or not you actually believe that the King James Bible is God’s inspired-preserved Word, in English— It still is— and, therefore, God can & will still use His Word to speak to people— even if the preacher doubts It!
Yep… The “KJV churches website” labeled you correctly, Dave— you only “use the KJV”…
Whenever I’m searching online for a local church, I recognize this label as my “last resort”— I’m appreciative that they still “use” It, but I’m also wary that they are NOT loyal to It. …Sad…
LikeLike
I’m happy to debate, but this exchange is more like debating a carnival barker. No doubt you’ve found the histrionics useful in other debates. But it really is tedious and ridiculous.
I have argued that God gave the words of the Bible, and that we still have those words. Every translation of those words into other languages is Scripture. When I stand up to preach on Sunday, before I read the text, I say, “these are the words of God.” That isn’t a game for me. I’m not stating a fiction. I’m declaring the truth. I preach it as the Word, and our people receive it as the word.
You have set out a very arbitrary requirement for people to be able to say they have THE Word of God in their hand, and if I say something different than you, then apparently I can’t call my Bible the Word of God.
Still, I go on calling it that, declaring its authority, proclaiming its truth. My conscience is not bound by your arbitrary rules.
Been nice talking to you.
LikeLike
Pingback: Two More Things I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists – The Village Smithy
“I am confident when I hold any edition of the TR that I am holding THE inspired, preserved Word of God without error or omission. Same for the Masoretic Hebrew.”
Okay, than you are KJVO by default. There simply is no other alternative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If ever I published something concerning the Scriptures that exuded a “well done” from the likes of Mark Ward— I would be ashamed of myself…
But, if I then “liked” on that attaboy= “well done”, from said Mark Ward— my friends should be ashamed of me!
LikeLike
Pastor Mallinak,
I couldn’t disagree with anything you wrote. You are very generous or enduring to publish a majority of the comments under this post. The fact that they attack you should manifest to onlookers and readers the huge distinction between the positions. Very often men lump all KJV defenders into one group.
Just to reinforce what you wrote for readers, and what I know you already know, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” translates three Greek words pasa graphe theopneustos. Graphe is a noun that refers to the actual original writings, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Pasa (“All”) is an adjective which modifies that noun. Theopneustos is an adjective that also modifies “writings,” and it means, “God breathed.” Even in the original Authorised Version “is” is italicized to show that it was not in the original, so “is” in “is given” and “is” in “is profitable” are both italicized. They are saying that no “is” exists in the Greek text. God breathed out all original writings. “Writings” does not refer to a translation.
Since God inspired those writings (scripture), the preserved writings (scripture) are still inspired. The King James Version translates from original language words. I like to say, the translators translated from something. Yes, God preserved those words from which they translated.
The crucial aspect of the doctrine of inspiration is that those very words came from God. We have the Word of God. They are not the words of men. They are the words of God. English words did not come from God. The crucial aspect of the doctrine of preservation is that we still have those words God inspired, because He preserved every one of them for us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: One Last Thing I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists – The Village Smithy
Kent Brandenburg, your comments are a perfect example as to why some have accused you all of trying to “correct the AV1611 English Bible with Scrivener’s 1881 Greek, et al, etc. etc…”.
Are we to assume that the KJV translators were just using italicized words to insert some “filler”, into the Text? Did they not understand punctuation & grammar? Were they unlearned men, compared to you? Do you have access to better textual resources than they had? Since your interpretation for 2Timothy 3:16 seems to be that the first italicized “is” is now a “was”, then why not the second “is”??
“All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
{vs}
“All scripture [was] given by inspiration of God, and [was] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
If one italicized “is” is really “was”– why not both?
Instead of erasing “is” from the KJV, and asserting your own understanding above the translators’ (and, the obvious will of God, for 400+ years), why not just quote from an English version that more fits the “original-language-inspiration-only theory” that you prefer? Here are some suggested Bible version choices for you—versions that have removed the first “is”, while retaining the second:
ASV – “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:” (American Standard Version)
DRA – “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Catholic Edition)
*Why DID the KJV translators choose to supply that first italicized “is”, in that verse?? (Obviously, they had good, sound reason to do so.)
LikeLike
Matt,
We know the KJV translators italicized “is” in “is given” because no verb exists in the text. They gave the verse a smoother reading, but they were telling the reader that verb did not exist. That’s why they used the italics. I have no problem with what they did, and I’m not correcting it.
You are far more likely to be correcting what the KJV translators did. They wrote, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” They knew there were multiple usages of the present tense, one of them a Gnomic Present. Matthew 7:17 is an example of the Gnomic Present, which says, “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” They used the Gnomic Present in their translation of 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Gnomic Present expresses a general truth without reference to time. That perfectly expresses the three Greek words to begin 2 Timothy 3:16. That general truth is that all scripture, sacred scripture, is given by inspiration of God. That includes every word and all of them from Genesis to Revelation in the language in which they were written.
Here are some other general truths said in Gnomic fashion. No scripture is given in English. All scripture is given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Notice that they write, “given.” Their translation says sacred scripture is given by inspiration. It is not translated by inspiration. Do you believe, Matt, in the translation of 2 Timothy 3:16? You seem to be taking an entirely different doctrine of inspiration of scripture than the translators did.
I don’t know who you impress with your insults of Dave Mallinak and myself. Maybe someone out there cheers on your type of rhetoric. I hope not. Personally I think it makes you look extremely poor. It also is ineffective. It doesn’t help persuade anyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kent,
No one is “cheering me on” in this fight— and, I am not arguing for the KJV as being the English speaking people’s perfect, “inspired & preserved” Word of God, to “impress” someone, but rather, because It is worth fighting for.
NOTE: I do NOT believe in “double inspiration”– mainly because, it isn’t necessary. Certainly, God breathed the originals, but that does not mean that He has to “re-breath” into each future faithful copy &/or faithful translation.
Kent, here is what I think that you, Mallinak, and I do agree on:
1. The “original autographs” were inspired. (but, None exist, today)
2. Faithful copies of the “original autographs” can also be considered, “inspired”. (Some portions still exist, today)
Here is where we disagree:
3. I believe that faithful translations of the “original autographs” (or, of the faithful copies) are also inspired—and, thus, God’s Words have been preserved.
You all accuse me of believing in some form of– “double inspiration”… No, to believe that a faithful translation is inspired is no different than you all claiming that inspiration is in the copies— except, that I believe that God can oversee the translating just as surely as He could oversee the copying.
Scripture is MORE than just “graphe”— Scripture is God’s Word, and many times It was first SPOKEN, before it was written:
Yet, Dave Mallinak claims (see his original post, above): “The Bible doesn’t claim inspiration for the writers of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 claims inspiration – theopneustos – for the graphe: the writings of Scripture. Yes, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But that isn’t theopneustos.”
Huh??? …What about these other verses, listed here??? —-
– (Acts 1:16) “Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.”
– (2Samuel 23:1-2) “Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.”
– (Luke 1:70) “As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began”
– (Acts 3:18) “But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.”
– (2Peter 1:21) “For 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.”
The Bible, Itself, disagrees with Dave’s explanation of 2Timothy 3:16.
Kent, both you & Mallinak put too much emphasis on the inspiration of the writings(“graphe”), only — while ignoring what else the Scripture reveals about Itself.
Scripture is MORE than just “graphe”— “Scripture” (graphe) is also a Person– the WORD (John 1), and He, (the “graphe”=”Scripture”), “preached” to Abraham (Galatians 3:8)— 400+ years before Moses ever wrote anything down.
On the road to Emmaus, and later with the eleven, the disciples said that Jesus “opened unto us the (graphe) scriptures” (Luke 24:32) — and, He did all that without having a wagon load of OT scrolls full of “original graphe” to show them.
Both the Living Word and the written Word are “incorruptible seed”, but we all agree that the inspired “original” MSS have decayed… So, obviously, the WORD is more than just the originally inspired “graphe” on a decayed MSS.
To limit “Scripture” to only “graphe”, is to ignore the Bible’s own commentary on “Scripture”.
Kent, you claim (comments above) that originals can be “scripture”, but translations are not Scripture—
KB – “God breathed out all original writings. “Writings” does not refer to a translation.”
KB – “No scripture is given in English.”
Yet, Dave claims (comments above) that translations ARE scripture, but not inspired and/or preserved—
DM – “I have argued that God gave the words of the Bible, and that we still have those words. Every translation of those words into other languages is Scripture.”
(Do you two really even agree with each other’s definition of “scripture”??)
Regardless, the faithful copies AND faithful translations of the inspired word of God are Scripture. And, ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God (and, since It is & continues to be inspired, then, It will continue to be preserved—in both the faithful copies AND the faithful translations, as well).
LikeLike
I hope to answer your comment soon. I don’t think I can take the time until next week.
LikeLike
Hi Matt,
I’ve been writing a series on inspiration and translation at my blog, but I am fine answering here. However, rather than just cut and paste the whole post here, I will link to it, and answer any qualms you have about it here at Dave’s blog.
https://kentbrandenburg.com/2023/09/18/the-doctrine-of-inspiration-of-scripture-and-translation-part-three/
I don’t think anything I’ve typed here contradicts with what I wrote in the three part series at my blog, including the third part linked above. I’m willing to change anything that does.
LikeLike