Question: "How does the translation process impact the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible?"

Answer:

This question deals with three very important issues: inspiration, preservation, and translation.

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible teaches that scripture is “God-breathed”; that is, God personally superintended the writing process, guiding the human authors so that His complete message was recorded for us. The Bible is truly God’s Word. During the writing process, the personality and writing style of each author was allowed expression; however, God so directed the writers that the 66 books they produced were free of error and were exactly what God wanted us to have. See 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21.

Of course, when we speak of “inspiration,” we are referring only to the process by which the original documents were composed. After that, the doctrine of the preservation of the Bible takes over. If God went to such great lengths to give us His Word, surely He would also take steps to preserve that Word unchanged. What we see in history is that God did exactly that.

The Old Testament Hebrew scriptures were painstakingly copied by Jewish scribes. Groups such as the Sopherim, the Zugoth, the Tannaim, and the Masoretes had a deep reverence for the texts they were copying. Their reverence was coupled with strict rules governing their work: the type of parchment used, the size of the columns, the kind of ink, and the spacing of words were all prescribed. Writing anything from memory was expressly forbidden, and the lines, words, and even the individual letters were methodically counted as a means of double-checking accuracy. The result of all this was that the words written by Isaiah’s pen are still available today. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls clearly confirms the precision of the Hebrew text.

The same is true for the New Testament Greek text. Thousands of Greek texts, some dating back to nearly A.D. 117, are available. The slight variations among the texts—not one of which affects an article of faith—are easily reconciled. Scholars have concluded that the New Testament we have at present is virtually unchanged from the original writings. Textual scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon said about the Bible, “It is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved. . . . This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”

This brings us to the translation of the Bible. Translation is an interpretative process, to some extent. When translating from one language to another, choices must be made. Should it be the more exact word, even if the meaning of that word is unclear to the modern reader? Or should it be a corresponding thought, at the expense of a more literal reading?

As an example, in Colossians 3:12, Paul says we are to put on “bowels of mercies” (KJV). The Greek word for “bowels,” which is literally “intestines,” comes from a root word meaning “spleen.” The KJV translators chose a literal translation of the word. The translators of the NASB chose “heart of compassion”—the “heart” being what today’s reader thinks of as the seat of emotions. The Amplified Bible has it as “tenderhearted pity and mercy.” The NIV simply puts “compassion.”

So, the KJV is the most literal in the above example, but the other translations certainly do justice to the verse. The core meaning of the command is to have compassionate feelings.

Most translations of the Bible are done by committee. This helps to guarantee that no individual prejudice or theology will affect the decisions of word choice, etc. Of course, the committee itself may have a particular agenda or bias (such as those producing the current “gender-neutral” mistranslations). But there is still plenty of good scholarship being done, and many good translations are available.

Having a good, honest translation of the Bible is important. A good translating team will have done its homework and will let the Bible speak for itself.

As a general rule, the more literal translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, ASB and NASB, have less “interpretative” work. The “freer” translations, such as the NIV, NLT, and CEV, by necessity do more “interpretation” of the text, but are generally more readable. Then there are the paraphrases, such as The Message and The Living Bible, which are not really translations at all but one person’s retelling of the Bible.

So, with all that in view, are translations of the Bible inspired and inerrant? The answer is no, they are not. God nowhere extends the promise of inspiration to translations of His Word. While many of the translations available today are superb in quality, they are not inspired by God, and are not perfect. Does this mean we cannot trust a translation? Again, the answer is no. Through careful study of Scripture, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, we can properly understand, interpret, and apply Scripture. Again, due to the faithful efforts of dedicated Christian translators (and of course the oversight of the Holy Spirit), the translations available today are superb and trustworthy. The fact that we cannot ascribe inerrancy to a translation should motivate us towards even closer study, and away from blind devotion towards any particular translation.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/translation-inspiration.html#ixzz36GIJX9Th

^^^^^


On the issue of inspiration I believe the term is wrongly used. To state that the scriptures are “God breathed” and God personally supervised its writing is misleading, simplistic and a fallacy. Poets compose writings and draw their inspiration from various sources do we then say these sources supervised the writings? One can draw inspiration for a painting from the face of a beautiful woman does it therefore follow that the woman breathed the painting into the painter? Clearly not.

There is no such thing as the “doctrine of preservation” this is just made up baloney, there is no evidence anywhere that God took any steps to preserve any writings, otherwise we would have the original manuscripts, which no longer exist. To state that the dead sea scrolls show the precision of the Hebrew scribes is quite right, but it is disingenuous, the Qumran find may support the fact that the Masoretics got their p’s and q’s right, but as with virtually all latter day pre-4th century discoveries of writings from that period, they are gnostic in nature, not one documentary find of that era supports the present model of Christianity imposed by the edicts of Constantine, that alone should be enough to make a true Christian weep. Christianity was likely more gnostic in nature…originally.

The use of the book of Isaiah by the article is a nonsense, we know now that the prophet Isaiah could not have written beyond the first 33-35 chapters of the book, we talk now of a “deutero-Isaiah” ( a second Isaiah) who wrote about events in subsequent chapters that the prophet could not have witnessed or even dreamt about.

To sum up, yes the Bible is inspired by God, the writers drew their inspiration from God but that’s it, the book was written by man, amended by man, redacted by man, had insertions to it by man (the Johannine comma springs to mind), has considerable errors in dogma and creed and was written largely by authors unknown and in many cases, individual books ascribed pseudonymously.

As for the myriad of translations that exist…an utter waste of time.

Sarassin:
^^^^^

To sum up, yes the Bible is inspired by God, the writers drew their inspiration from God but that’s it, the book was written by man, amended by man, redacted by man, had insertions to it by man (the Johannine comma springs to mind), has considerable errors in dogma and creed and was written largely by authors unknown and in many cases, individual books ascribed pseudonymously.

As for the myriad of translations that exist…an utter waste of time.

But is it only the Bible that is inspired by God? Can a poet not write a poem inspired by God? Can an architect not build a palace by inspiration from God? What makes the bible uniquely inspired?

Pastor AIO:

But is it only the Bible that is inspired by God? Can a poet not write a poem inspired by God? Can an architect not build a palace by inspiration from God? What makes the bible uniquely inspired?

We need only to look around us to see evidence of inspiration drawn from God. Witness the work of Michaelangelo, the Sistine chapel or even the statue of David, contemplate the work of Titian (Christ carrying the cross) or Caravaggio. By walking into a particular 12th century cathedral in the old quarters of Zurich one can feel the inspiration that went into its medieval construction. Similarly a poet can draw inspiration from God, the metaphysical poet John Donne wrote "every man's death diminishes me....." an inspired moment if ever there was one. Biblical writers were clearly motivated to preserve aspects of their beliefs for posterity and drew inspiration from God, however I fail to see any evidence of the OP's postulations.

Sarassin:

We need only to look around us to see evidence of inspiration drawn from God. Witness the work of Michaelangelo, the Sistine chapel or even the statue of David, contemplate the work of Titian (Christ carrying the cross) or Caravaggio. By walking into a particular 12th century cathedral in the old quarters of Zurich one can feel the inspiration that went into its medieval construction. Similarly a poet can draw inspiration from God, the metaphysical poet John Donne wrote "every man's death diminishes me....." an inspired moment if ever there was one. Biblical writers were clearly motivated to preserve aspects of their beliefs for posterity and drew inspiration from God, however I fail to see any evidence of the OP's postulations.

indeed, and similarly the traditions of the church can be inspired by God. Doctrines such as the trinity which cannot be found in the bible can be said, and are indeed said, to have been inspired by God.

But should I assume, Sarassin, that like me, you do not believe the bible to be Uniquely inspired. What about the OP? Sir, what are your grounds for saying that the bible is uniquely inspired, if that is what you are indeed saying?

Pastor AIO:


indeed, and similarly the traditions of the church can be inspired by God. Doctrines such as the trinity which cannot be found in the bible can be said, and are indeed said, to have been inspired by God.

But should I assume, Sarassin, that like me, you do not believe the bible to be Uniquely inspired. What about the OP? Sir, what are your grounds for saying that the bible is uniquely inspired, if that is what you are indeed saying?

Your assumption would be right. However, although I do agree that a doctrine like the Trinity for instance drew inspiration from God, for me, it is more a Constantinian contraption.

Sarassin:
^^^^^

On the issue of inspiration I believe the term is wrongly used. To state that the scriptures are “God breathed” and God personally supervised its writing is misleading, simplistic and a fallacy. Poets compose writings and draw their inspiration from various sources do we then say these sources supervised the writings? One can draw inspiration for a painting from the face of a beautiful woman does it therefore follow that the woman breathed the painting into the painter? Clearly not.

What is fallacy are the doctrines of partial and dynamic inspirations respectively. The true doctrine is verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are God breathed by whatever particular methods God may have used in their various parts, such as the individual human abilities and researches of the various human writers. God is omniscient and the Scriptures are infallible and free from error of any kind.

Sarassin:

There is no such thing as the “doctrine of preservation” this is just made up baloney, there is no evidence anywhere that God took any steps to preserve any writings, otherwise we would have the original manuscripts, which no longer exist. To state that the dead sea scrolls show the precision of the Hebrew scribes is quite right, but it is disingenuous, the Qumran find may support the fact that the Masoretics got their p’s and q’s right, but as with virtually all latter day pre-4th century discoveries of writings from that period, they are gnostic in nature, not one documentary find of that era supports the present model of Christianity imposed by the edicts of Constantine, that alone should be enough to make a true Christian weep. Christianity was likely more gnostic in nature…originally.

If they were not preserved we would not have the 66 books of the Bible which is still the best seller in the world today.

Sarassin:

The use of the book of Isaiah by the article is a nonsense, we know now that the prophet Isaiah could not have written beyond the first 33-35 chapters of the book, we talk now of a “deutero-Isaiah” ( a second Isaiah) who wrote about events in subsequent chapters that the prophet could not have witnessed or even dreamt about.

The book of Isaiah is the more reason anyone should believe and realise that it was inspired by God. The book prophesied the coming Christ from His conception all the way to His suffering and crucifixion. Both Christians and Jewish scholars believe that it was written by Isaiah under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles frequently quoted from both sections of Isaiah and they always attributed them to Isaiah with no suggestion that they were written referring to two different men. For instance, our Lord Jesus Christ attributed His quotation of Isaiah 40:3 to the prophet Isaiah in Matthew 3:3 and His quote of Isaiah 6:9-10 was attributed to Isaiah the prophet in John 12:38-41. The oldest manuscript of Isaiah is in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated about 100 B.C., and this gives no indication whatever that it was not all written by this same Isaiah. All genuine historical evidence agrees on the unity of prophet Isaiah.

Sarassin:

To sum up, yes the Bible is inspired by God, the writers drew their inspiration from God but that’s it, the book was written by man, amended by man, redacted by man, had insertions to it by man (the Johannine comma springs to mind), has considerable errors in dogma and creed and was written largely by authors unknown and in many cases, individual books ascribed pseudonymously.

You are entitled to what you choose to believe but don't come here and present it as scholarly work.

Sarassin:

As for the myriad of translations that exist…an utter waste of time.

Translations of the Holy Scriptures are neither inspired nor inerrant. Inspiration in this sense refers to the process by which the original documents were composed.

Pastor AIO:


indeed, and similarly the traditions of the church can be inspired by God. Doctrines such as the trinity which cannot be found in the bible can be said, and are indeed said, to have been inspired by God.

But should I assume, Sarassin, that like me, you do not believe the bible to be Uniquely inspired. What about the OP? Sir, what are your grounds for saying that the bible is uniquely inspired, if that is what you are indeed saying?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).

The verse above is my ground for saying that the Holy Scriptures are uniquely inspired. The verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures are infallible and free from error of any kind.

OLAADEGBU:
The Holy Scriptures are God breathed by whatever particular methods God may have used in their various parts, such as the individual human abilities and researches of the various human writers. God is omniscient and the Scriptures are infallible and free from error of any kind.

Kindly reference the verse in the bible that states the bolded.

OLAADEGBU
If they were not preserved we would not have the 66 books of the Bible which is still the best seller in the world today.

The fact that the bible is a best-seller is not an indication of infallibility. If original writings had been preserved the pentecostal Christianity would not be in the horrendous state it is presently in.

OLAADEGBU
Our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles frequently quoted from both sections of Isaiah and they always attributed them to Isaiah with no suggestion that they were written referring to two different men. For instance, our Lord Jesus Christ attributed His quotation of Isaiah 40:3 to the prophet Isaiah in Matthew 3:3 and His quote of Isaiah 6:9-10 was attributed to Isaiah the prophet in John 12:38-41. The oldest manuscript of Isaiah is in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated about 100 B.C., and this gives no indication whatever that it was not all written by this same Isaiah. All genuine historical evidence agrees on the unity of prophet Isaiah.

Apologetic fudging. The oldest "extant" manuscript of Isaiah is contained in the Qumran find dated to around 100BCE, but as we all know, the prophet Isaiah lived and wrote fully 700 years before Jesus and his Apostles walked the earth. The book of Isaiah details events (not prophecies) that happened close to a century after the death of the prophet. First century Jesus and his Apostles would be none the wiser as to whom they were quoting. No serious biblical scholar outside of Christian apologetic writers considers the book of Isaiah to be a unitary work.

Sarassin:

Kindly reference the verse in the bible that states the bolded.

Only if you reference what you wrote above.

Sarassin:

The fact that the bible is a best-seller is not an indication of infallibility. If original writings had been preserved the pentecostal Christianity would not be in the horrendous state it is presently in.

God has preserved His Word and that's why we are reading the 66 books of the Bible.

Sarassin:

Apologetic fudging. The oldest "extant" manuscript of Isaiah is contained in the Qumran find dated to around 100BCE, but as we all know, the prophet Isaiah lived and wrote fully 700 years before Jesus and his Apostles walked the earth. The book of Isaiah details events (not prophecies) that happened close to a century after the death of the prophet. First century Jesus and his Apostles would be none the wiser as to whom they were quoting. No serious biblical scholar outside of Christian apologetic writers considers the book of Isaiah to be a unitary work.

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the entire book of Isaiah as it is a marvelous document containing history and prophecy that clearly pointed forward to the coming Messiah and the fulfilment of all God's purposes for both Israel and the whole of creation. You are free to continue to believe in your gnostic beliefs in your new Age community but true Christians are really not interested. Thank you.

OLAADEGBU

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the entire book of Isaiah as it is a marvelous document containing history and prophecy that clearly pointed forward to the coming Messiah and the fulfilment of all God's purposes for both Israel and the whole of creation. You are free to continue to believe in your gnostic beliefs in your new Age community but true Christians are really not interested. Thank you.

Likewise, I believe in your right to continue to propagate apologetic fundamentalist doctrinal extremism. Let me be clear there is no doubting that the book of Isaiah is a marvelous book of prose poetry commentary and prophecy, but no serious biblical scholar worth his/her salt believes the entire book was written by the Prophet Isaiah. It isn't rocket science, Isaiah was an 8th century BCE prophet, who also wrote contemporary accounts (not prophecy) of the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon and the subsequent exile of the elite around 586BCE, and even later events. I mean this is divinity 101, do you lot actually read your bibles or are you just a biblical renta-quote?

Sarassin:

Likewise, I believe in your right to continue to propagate apologetic fundamentalist doctrinal extremism. Let me be clear there is no doubting that the book of Isaiah is a marvelous book of prose poetry commentary and prophecy, but no serious biblical scholar worth his/her salt believes the entire book was written by the Prophet Isaiah. It isn't rocket science, Isaiah was an 8th century BCE prophet, who also wrote contemporary accounts (not prophecy) of the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon and the subsequent exile of the elite around 586BCE, and even later events. I mean this is divinity 101, do you lot actually read your bibles or are you just a biblical renta-quote?

The article below shows what serious biblical scholars who 'worth their salt' have written logically, rationally and reasonably. You do not have to agree with it if your mind is already made up.

The 'Two' Books of Isaiah

"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortable to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD's hand double for all her sins" (Isaiah 40:1-2).

These two verses introduce the so-called book of "Deutero-Isaiah," which biblical critics (who deny that prophecy can be fulfilled) claim was written by a second Isaiah simply because it contains prophetic claims which have come to pass. The Lord Jesus, however, quoted more than once from both "divisions" of Isaiah, attributing both of them to the same inspired author, and He surely knew more about their true authorship than do modern liberals!

Actually, however, the two divisions of Isaiah are quite distinctive in their respective vocabularies, simply because their respective themes are different. In fact, the chapter structure of the two divisions is quite remarkable, possibly even providential. The first book (chapters 1-39) contains the same number of chapters as the Old Testament has books. The second book (chapters 40-66) contains 27 chapters, the same as the number of books in the New Testament. The New Testament portion begins with John the Baptist (Isaiah 40:1-5), just as the New Testament itself does, and ends with the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah 65 and 66; compare Revelation 21 and 22).

The central chapter in the New Testament part of Isaiah is Isaiah 53, which contains the clearest and fullest exposition of the substitutionary death of Christ for our sins to be found anywhere in the Bible. And the central verse of this chapter (which actually should begin at Isaiah 52:13) is: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). HMM

For more . . . .

Is it just the 'vocabulary' of the two Isaiahs that is different? Or is it also the type of language it is written in? We all know that language evolves over time. If I'm reading a script that goes like this:

I walketh upon the meadow whence I chanceth upon a maiden fair and pure .... and Yo man, I tell you she was fly, this girl was outta sight!!

would you say that the script was using different vocabularies or would you say that it was using english language from two totally different eras. Eras that are centuries apart.

OLAADEGBU:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).

The verse above is my ground for saying that the Holy Scriptures are uniquely inspired. The verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures are infallible and free from error of any kind.

This is so flawed in so many ways.

If I say Vitamin C is profitable for a strong immune system and the warding off of colds ... does that mean that I said that it is impossible to have a strong immune system without chewing Vit C tablets. Or would you say I claimed that anyone that chews Vit C will never fall ill.


Saying that something is profitable for a cause simply means that it is helpful. It doesn't mean Inerrancy or any such spurious claim.

I read the bible and I can affirm that it is indeed profitable for all those things which the verse claims. That doesn't mean that the bible is hundred percent accurate. I also read How To Find Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie and I will admit that it is a profitable book for getting on well with society. But I would not advice anyone to believe everything in the book hook line and sinker.

The Science of Medicine is profitable for a healthy population. that doesn't mean that the science of Medicine is foolproof, or inerrant.



Then there is the other point about what is referred to as scriptures because at the time of that writing the bible didn't even exist. yeah certain parts of the bible existed. Furthermore there are other books that were considered scripture at the time that didn't make it into the bible.

This attempt to deify the bible is so wrong I cannot rail enough against it.

OLAADEGBU

These two verses introduce the so-called book of "Deutero-Isaiah," which biblical critics (who deny that prophecy can be fulfilled) claim was written by a second Isaiah simply because it contains prophetic claims which have come to pass. The Lord Jesus, however, quoted more than once from both "divisions" of Isaiah, attributing both of them to the same inspired author, and He surely knew more about their true authorship than do modern liberals!

There is nothing logical rational or reasonable about the article you have posted. It does not deal with the issues. The fact that Jesus quoted from a scripture written a minimum of 500 years before he lived does not validate its authorship. By the way, do you actually have opinions of your own or are you simply a fully paid up member of the well-funded Christian apologetic movement?

Nobody disputes that Isaiah gave prophecies, in verse, but you conveniently forget the book also contains prose. Interestingly after chapter 39, of the book, the name Isaiah never appears again. Of what use is the pseudo-numerology comparison between the book of Isaiah and the NT…also, Isaiah 53 is not the subject of this discussion….just a red herring !

Context is required, we know that Deutero-Isaiah wrote mainly to the Jews in exile, offering them comfort and the hope of a return (in prose) not prophecy, so the author is writing –after the fall—of Jerusalem from roughly 586BCE, the author extolls the virtues of Cyrus the Great and predicts the “imminent” fall of Babylon which Cyrus duly conquered in 539BCE, therefore that prophecy was dated no later than 539BCE.

We know also that by 510BCE Jerusalem had been liberated and a lot of the Jewish exiles had returned home and rebuilt the temple, however the exiles found themselves in disagreement with those who had remained behind and were now landlords, there were also issues with the types of Government to be formed, the later part of the book of Isaiah deals with these issues, therefore it is clear the author is writing post-exilic,(at this time) for instance Isaiah 61:4.

The point of the above is to illustrate to you that Isaiah ben Amoz, 8th century Prophet of Israel would have had to have lived a minimum of 250 years to complete the book. Now you tell me….

Given By Inspiration

"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 3:16,17).

This passage is the most definitive of all passages on the inspiration of the Bible. It explicitly repudiates all the false concepts which men have developed to try to escape this vital doctrine.

For example, it repudiates the humanistic theory of inspiration, which says that the writers were "inspired" with the same quality of exalted feelings that inspired other great writers. But this verse attributes it not to human inspiration, but to the "inspiration of God."

Then, there is the partial theory of inspiration, which says that part of the Bible is inspired (the "religious" parts), but that part of it is not (the scientific and historical parts). But our verse says that all Scripture is inspired! The dynamic theory says the thoughts are inspired, but not the words. However, it is the Scriptures that are inspired, not the thoughts of the men who wrote them. The "Scriptures" mean the "writings"—the actual words written.

The encounter theory says the Scriptures are not inspired in themselves, but only become inspired when a reader "encounters" God through reading them. This, also, is false. The Scriptures are inspired regardless of how they affect the reader. Actually, the phrase "given by inspiration of God" is one word in the Greek, meaning "God-breathed."

Thus, plenary verbal inspiration and complete divine origin and authority of all the Holy Scriptures is the true Biblical doctrine. When one does accept the God-breathed authority of Scripture, however, he has an infinite resource, serving as an inerrant framework for all true wisdom and knowledge, and leading him into full maturity in the Christian life. HMM

For more . . . .

OLAADEGBU: Given By Inspiration

"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 3:16,17).

This passage is the most definitive of all passages
on the inspiration of the Bible. It explicitly repudiates all the false concepts which men have developed to try to escape this vital doctrine.

For example, it repudiates the humanistic theory of inspiration, which says that the writers were "inspired" with the same quality of exalted feelings that inspired other great writers. But this verse attributes it not to human inspiration, but to the "inspiration of God."

Then, there is the partial theory of inspiration, which says that part of the Bible is inspired (the "religious" parts), but that part of it is not (the scientific and historical parts). But our verse says that all Scripture is inspired! The dynamic theory says the thoughts are inspired, but not the words. However, it is the Scriptures that are inspired, not the thoughts of the men who wrote them. The "Scriptures" mean the "writings"—the actual words written.

The encounter theory says the Scriptures are not inspired in themselves, but only become inspired when a reader "encounters" God through reading them. This, also, is false. The Scriptures are inspired regardless of how they affect the reader. Actually, the phrase "given by inspiration of God" is one word in the Greek, meaning "God-breathed."

Thus, plenary verbal inspiration and complete divine origin and authority of all the Holy Scriptures is the true Biblical doctrine. When one does accept the God-breathed authority of Scripture, however, he has an infinite resource, serving as an inerrant framework for all true wisdom and knowledge, and leading him into full maturity in the Christian life. HMM

For more . . . .

If this is the most definitive of all passages.. then it only serves to demonstrate how nonsensical your claim it. Can you address head on any of the point that Sarassin or I have made? I doubt it.

PastorAIO:

If this is the most definitive of all passages.. then it only serves to demonstrate how nonsensical your claim it. Can you address head on any of the point that Sarassin or I have made? I doubt it.

Don't be flamboozled. All the articles I posted addressed your objections conclusively and if you still have any misgivings kindly point them out.

OLAADEGBU:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).

The verse above is my ground for saying that the Holy Scriptures are uniquely inspired. The verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures are infallible and free from error of any kind.

There are problems with this verse. As PastorAIO indicated, the scriptures Paul would have been familiar with in his lifetime would have comprised of the Pentateuch, the Deutero-Canonicals and the Prophetic writings, and as you have pointed out ceaselessly, even Jesus quoted the “scriptures”. Most importantly the scriptures were never in doubt. Why would Paul record such a verse?

Another possibility exists, the author did indeed have access to NT scriptures, at the very earliest, this would be the Muratorian canons, compiled in the late second century around 170CE ( we know this because the canons reference Pius I Bishop of Rome as being on chair). The Muratorian canon is the earliest known compilation of the NT.

Therefore if the author of that verse was indeed referring to “scriptures” comprising the NT canon and "his" work then the author could not have been Paul. This is one of the reasons why the Pastoral epistles are considered pseudonymous writings. The forger, probably an admirer of Paul inserted that verse to give his work added authenticity.

In the final analysis, in what manner does the verse allude to the infallibility or inerrancy of the bible?

OLAADEGBU:

Don't be flamboozled. All the articles I posted addressed your objections conclusively and if you still have any misgivings kindly point them out.

My doubts are confirmed.

PastorAIO:

This is so flawed in so many ways.

If I say Vitamin C is profitable for a strong immune system and the warding off of colds ... does that mean that I said that it is impossible to have a strong immune system without chewing Vit C tablets. Or would you say I claimed that anyone that chews Vit C will never fall ill.

Your analogy is misplaced because we are not talking about Vitamin C but the Infallible, inerrant Word of God.

PastorAIO:

Saying that something is profitable for a cause simply means that it is helpful. It doesn't mean Inerrancy or any such spurious claim.

If you had believed the word of God you wouldn't be confused when it comes to the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the holy Scriptures because the verse says that it is profitable for doctrine.

PastorAIO:

I read the bible and I can affirm that it is indeed profitable for all those things which the verse claims. That doesn't mean that the bible is hundred percent accurate. I also read How To Find Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie and I will admit that it is a profitable book for getting on well with society. But I would not advice anyone to believe everything in the book hook line and sinker.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be saved, practise it to be holy.

PastorAIO:

The Science of Medicine is profitable for a healthy population. that doesn't mean that the science of Medicine is foolproof, or inerrant.

We are talking about the Word of God here and not the science of medicine. The Bible is Basic instruction Before Leaving earth.

PastorAIO:

Then there is the other point about what is referred to as scriptures because at the time of that writing the bible didn't even exist. yeah certain parts of the bible existed. Furthermore there are other books that were considered scripture at the time that didn't make it into the bible.

There is a yardstick used for determining the books that are God breathed, the books that didn't pass the test didn't make it. Simples.

PastorAIO:

This attempt to deify the bible is so wrong I cannot rail enough against it.

The Bible:

Blessed

Instruction

Bringing

Life

Eternal

Sarassin:

There is nothing logical rational or reasonable about the article you have posted. It does not deal with the issues. The fact that Jesus quoted from a scripture written a minimum of 500 years before he lived does not validate its authorship. By the way, do you actually have opinions of your own or are you simply a fully paid up member of the well-funded Christian apologetic movement?

My posts would only make sense to you if you are not here with an ulterior motive. Christians who have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour know that whatever our Lord quotes validates the writer as a prophet of God. The fact that our Lord Jesus Christ quoted frequently from both sections of the book of Isaiah and that He always attributed them to the same man and not two different persons is enough for me and for all that look forward to His second Advent.

Sarassin:

Nobody disputes that Isaiah gave prophecies, in verse, but you conveniently forget the book also contains prose. Interestingly after chapter 39, of the book, the name Isaiah never appears again. Of what use is the pseudo-numerology comparison between the book of Isaiah and the NT…also, Isaiah 53 is not the subject of this discussion….just a red herring !

You cannot wave Isaiah 53 off just like that. That chapter contains probably the clearest and fullest exposition of the sacrificial sufferings of Christ in substitution for our sins to be found anywhere in the Bible including the NT. If you prayerfully read that chapter you will discover that it begins with a painful depiction of the sinful, lost condition of the people but it ends in the triumphant creation of the new heavens and the new earth.

Sarassin:

Context is required, we know that Deutero-Isaiah wrote mainly to the Jews in exile, offering them comfort and the hope of a return (in prose) not prophecy, so the author is writing –after the fall—of Jerusalem from roughly 586BCE, the author extolls the virtues of Cyrus the Great and predicts the “imminent” fall of Babylon which Cyrus duly conquered in 539BCE, therefore that prophecy was dated no later than 539BCE.

We know also that by 510BCE Jerusalem had been liberated and a lot of the Jewish exiles had returned home and rebuilt the temple, however the exiles found themselves in disagreement with those who had remained behind and were now landlords, there were also issues with the types of Government to be formed, the later part of the book of Isaiah deals with these issues, therefore it is clear the author is writing post-exilic,(at this time) for instance Isaiah 61:4.

What do you know about the context. The different divisions you refer to arose because they relate to the 2 different themes of the 2 sections. There are more similarities than differences in the 2 sections if you care to know. The real reason for the "two Isaiahs" is that the 2nd division contains many remarkable prophecies that were later fulfilled. For instance, the naming of the Persian emperor Cyrus which was more than a century in advance (Isa 45:1-4).

Sarassin:

The point of the above is to illustrate to you that Isaiah ben Amoz, 8th century Prophet of Israel would have had to have lived a minimum of 250 years to complete the book. Now you tell me….

The fact that you find it difficult to believe that God can supernaturally reveal the future to His divinely called and prepared prophets is the bone of your contention. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the entire book of Isaiah because it contains not only prophecy but also history that is accurate. The Greek Septuagint translation of the OT gave no hint that it was not all written by Isaiah the prophet, "the prince of prophets".

PastorAIO:

My doubts are confirmed.

You should rather doubt your doubts and kiss the Son lest He be angry with you.

OLAADEGBU

My posts would only make sense to you if you are not here with an ulterior motive. Christians who have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour know that whatever our Lord quotes validates the writer as a prophet of God. The fact that our Lord Jesus Christ quoted frequently from both sections of the book of Isaiah and that He always attributed them to the same man and not two different persons is enough for me and for all that look forward to His second Advent.

I have no ulterior motive other than to point out the error in your submission. Let’s put your above statement to the test shall we? Jesus quotes the book of Isaiah 8 times during his ministry, see verses below; NOT ONCE does Jesus mention the Prophet Isaiah by name or attributes the quotes to Isaiah. In fact in the only allusion Jesus makes (John 6:45) quoting from Isaiah 54:13, he starts by saying ”it is written in the prophets….” The inference here is obvious. Your statement that Jesus always attributed his quotes to the same writer is just a figment of your imagination.
(Mt 13:14-15. Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, Mt 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46 MT 15:8-9 MT 21:33, Mark 12:1, Luke 20:9 Luke 22:37, John 6:45)

OLAADEGBU

You cannot wave Isaiah 53 off just like that. That chapter contains probably the clearest and fullest exposition of the sacrificial sufferings of Christ in substitution for our sins to be found anywhere in the Bible including the NT. If you prayerfully read that chapter you will discover that it begins with a painful depiction of the sinful, lost condition of the people but it ends in the triumphant creation of the new heavens and the new earth.

Ok, fine let’s discuss Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant.

Isaiah 53 is the Fourth in the quadruplet of the four “servant” songs, the others being Isaiah’s chapters 42, 49 and 50 and in each of the previous “servant” songs the “servant” is plainly and clearly identified as the Jewish Nation. Isaiah 53 is merely a continuation of the same theme.
It is clear that the “suffering servant” in historical context is Israel, it is also clear that in the history of interpretation it is erroneously deemed Jesus. Without a doubt Israel is the servant of Yahweh, the son whom he has begotten, but historically at that time the “servant” of Yahweh was in exile suffering, thereby the suffering servant Israel. In any event what is clear is that Isaiah did not write it. We can discuss this in a separate thread if you wish.

OLAADEGBU

What do you know about the context. The different divisions you refer to arose because they relate to the 2 different themes of the 2 sections. There are more similarities than differences in the 2 sections if you care to know. The real reason for the "two Isaiahs" is that the 2nd division contains many remarkable prophecies that were later fulfilled. For instance, the naming of the Persian emperor Cyrus which was more than a century in advance (Isa 45:1-4).

Ok, if you say the author of Isaiah predicted the naming of the Persian emperor Cyrus a century in advance, then kindly explain how come he was around to write witness account of Cyrus’ accomplishments ?

OLAADEGBU

The fact that you find it difficult to believe that God can supernaturally reveal the future to His divinely called and prepared prophets is the bone of your contention. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the entire book of Isaiah because it contains not only prophecy but also history that is accurate. The Greek Septuagint translation of the OT gave no hint that it was not all written by Isaiah the prophet, "the prince of prophets".

I have no idea why you are placing reliance on the Septuagint. Also on the contrary, I have no difficulties in believing that God gave divine revelations to his prophets. My assertion is that the revelations contained in the book of Isaiah were not all delivered to the prophet Isaiah, some were delivered through other prophets as yet unidentified it is simply irrational to believe otherwise.

OLAADEGBU:

Your analogy is misplaced because we are not talking about Vitamin C but the Infallible, inerrant Word of God.

We are talking about the word 'profitable' as used in the book of Timothy, and I am correcting you that Profitable does not mean Infallible and inerrant. Therefore you cannot use it to make the claim to deify the bible.

If you had believed the word of God you wouldn't be confused when it comes to the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the holy Scriptures because the verse says that it is profitable for doctrine.

I am not confused. You are the one confused enough to think that being profitable means infallible and inerrant.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be saved, practise it to be holy.

Whatever!

We are talking about the Word of God here and not the science of medicine. The Bible is Basic instruction Before Leaving earth.

We are talking about the bible, and I drew the analogy that just as medicine is profitable but it is not inerrant, so is the bible. But of course it is convenient for you not to get the point.

There is a yardstick used for determining the books that are God breathed, the books that didn't pass the test didn't make it. Simples.

Thank you for affirming that there is actually a yardstick. I have been asking for one for about 5 years now. So please seize this opportunity to tell me WHAT IS THE YARDSTICK/CRITERIA FOR KNOWING WHICH BOOKS ARE INSPIRED BY GOD AND WHICH AREN'T. And why did books that were quoted from by the apostles not make it into the bible.?

The Bible:

Blessed

Instruction

Bringing

Life

Eternal

Let us learn some basic etymology.

Origin
Middle English: via Old French from ecclesiastical Latin biblia, from Greek (ta) biblia ‘(the) books’, from biblion ‘book’, originally a diminutive of biblos ‘papyrus, scroll’, of Semitic origin.

-Google.

OLAADEGBU:

You should rather doubt your doubts and kiss the Son lest He be angry with you.

The only person that will get angry is you. Jesus has no matter inside your lies.

Sarassin:


I have no ulterior motive other than to point out the error in your submission. Let’s put your above statement to the test shall we? Jesus quotes the book of Isaiah 8 times during his ministry, see verses below; NOT ONCE does Jesus mention the Prophet Isaiah by name or attributes the quotes to Isaiah. In fact in the only allusion Jesus makes (John 6:45) quoting from Isaiah 54:13, he starts by saying ”it is written in the prophets….” The inference here is obvious. Your statement that Jesus always attributed his quotes to the same writer is just a figment of your imagination.
(Mt 13:14-15. Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, Mt 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46 MT 15:8-9 MT 21:33, Mark 12:1, Luke 20:9 Luke 22:37, John 6:45)



Ok, fine let’s discuss Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant.

Isaiah 53 is the Fourth in the quadruplet of the four “servant” songs, the others being Isaiah’s chapters 42, 49 and 50 and in each of the previous “servant” songs the “servant” is plainly and clearly identified as the Jewish Nation. Isaiah 53 is merely a continuation of the same theme.
It is clear that the “suffering servant” in historical context is Israel, it is also clear that in the history of interpretation it is erroneously deemed Jesus. Without a doubt Israel is the servant of Yahweh, the son whom he has begotten, but historically at that time the “servant” of Yahweh was in exile suffering, thereby the suffering servant Israel. In any event what is clear is that Isaiah did not write it. We can discuss this in a separate thread if you wish.



Ok, if you say the author of Isaiah predicted the naming of the Persian emperor Cyrus a century in advance, then kindly explain how come he was around to write witness account of Cyrus’ accomplishments ?



I have no idea why you are placing reliance on the Septuagint. Also on the contrary, I have no difficulties in believing that God gave divine revelations to his prophets. My assertion is that the revelations contained in the book of Isaiah were not all delivered to the prophet Isaiah, some were delivered through other prophets as yet unidentified it is simply irrational to believe otherwise.

Abeg, let me take a ringside seat and get comfortable.

Sarassin:

I have no ulterior motive other than to point out the error in your submission. Let’s put your above statement to the test shall we? Jesus quotes the book of Isaiah 8 times during his ministry, see verses below; NOT ONCE does Jesus mention the Prophet Isaiah by name or attributes the quotes to Isaiah. In fact in the only allusion Jesus makes (John 6:45) quoting from Isaiah 54:13, he starts by saying ”it is written in the prophets….” The inference here is obvious. Your statement that Jesus always attributed his quotes to the same writer is just a figment of your imagination.
(Mt 13:14-15. Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, Mt 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46 MT 15:8-9 MT 21:33, Mark 12:1, Luke 20:9 Luke 22:37, John 6:45)

Your real reason is that you find it difficult to believe that the Supernatural God can supernaturally reveal the future to prophet Isaiah.

You cannot separate the word of God from our Lord Jesus Christ because Jesus is the Word (John 1:1). And what does the Word say? Check them out in the following verses: Matthew 3:3; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14; 15:7; Luke 3:4; 4:17; John 1:23; 12:38-41; Acts 8:28-30; 28:25; Rom 9:27-29; 10:16, 20; 15:12.

Let me quote what our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 13:14 when He quoted Isaiah 6:9-10

"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which says, By hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive"

Even though the prophecy was originally applied to the Jewish leaders at Isaiah's time. Our Lord Jesus Christ indicated in the verse above that it also applied to His own time and therefore is evidently a general principle applicable to all ages. And a lesson for us is that those who truly desire to know God's truth will receive it abundantly (Isa 13:12); but professing "Christians" who persist in rejecting or distorting God's Word will eventually miss out even losing what they seem to have.

Sarassin:

Ok, fine let’s discuss Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant.

Isaiah 53 is the Fourth in the quadruplet of the four “servant” songs, the others being Isaiah’s chapters 42, 49 and 50 and in each of the previous “servant” songs the “servant” is plainly and clearly identified as the Jewish Nation. Isaiah 53 is merely a continuation of the same theme.
It is clear that the “suffering servant” in historical context is Israel, it is also clear that in the history of interpretation it is erroneously deemed Jesus. Without a doubt Israel is the servant of Yahweh, the son whom he has begotten, but historically at that time the “servant” of Yahweh was in exile suffering, thereby the suffering servant Israel. In any event what is clear is that Isaiah did not write it. We can discuss this in a separate thread if you wish.

The verses are also applicable to the NT as I stated earlier. The verses in Isaiah chapter 53 are quoted at least 6 times in the NT and these always indicated their fulfilment in our Lord Jesus Christ more than 700 years later.

Sarassin:

Ok, if you say the author of Isaiah predicted the naming of the Persian emperor Cyrus a century in advance, then kindly explain how come he was around to write witness account of Cyrus’ accomplishments ?

You should remember that the Persian emperor Cyrus was named by God about 150 years even before he was born. Cyrus eventually became emperor and thus fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy about 175 years after Isaiah pronounced it.

Sarassin:

I have no idea why you are placing reliance on the Septuagint. Also on the contrary, I have no difficulties in believing that God gave divine revelations to his prophets. My assertion is that the revelations contained in the book of Isaiah were not all delivered to the prophet Isaiah, some were delivered through other prophets as yet unidentified it is simply irrational to believe otherwise.

I did not only mention the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT I also mentioned the testimonies of the oldest extant manuscript of Isaiah in one of the Dead See Scrolls which gave no indication that it was written by different men. I also gave the witness of Jesus and His apostles who frequently quoted from both sections of Isaiah. The Jews and Christians through the centuries all attributed these two sections to the same Isaiah.

PastorAIO:

We are talking about the word 'profitable' as used in the book of Timothy, and I am correcting you that Profitable does not mean Infallible and inerrant. Therefore you cannot use it to make the claim to deify the bible.

I am not confused. You are the one confused enough to think that being profitable means infallible and inerrant.

Are we not talking about the doctrine of infallibility, inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures? All Scriptures are surely profitable for doctrine of the said topic.

PastorAIO:

Whatever!

PastorAIO:

We are talking about the bible, and I drew the analogy that just as medicine is profitable but it is not inerrant, so is the bible. But of course it is convenient for you not to get the point.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

PastorAIO:

Thank you for affirming that there is actually a yardstick. I have been asking for one for about 5 years now. So please seize this opportunity to tell me WHAT IS THE YARDSTICK/CRITERIA FOR KNOWING WHICH BOOKS ARE INSPIRED BY GOD AND WHICH AREN'T. And why did books that were quoted from by the apostles not make it into the bible.?

To start with, the Christian's OT is the same as the Hebrew Bible. All 39 books of the OT are the same Scriptures that make up the Hebrew Scriptures. If the book is not in the Hebrew Scriptures they are therefore disqualified.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/why-66/

PastorAIO:

Let us learn some basic etymology.

Origin
Middle English: via Old French from ecclesiastical Latin biblia, from Greek (ta) biblia ‘(the) books’, from biblion ‘book’, originally a diminutive of biblos ‘papyrus, scroll’, of Semitic origin.

-Google.

Those who wrote the basic etymology are not necessarily born again. You need the basic imperatives for acceptable brethren:

Basic
Imperative
Before
Leaving
Earth

Romans 12:1

PastorAIO:

The only person that will get angry is you. Jesus has no matter inside your lies.

Why should I get angry since I have kissed the Son, have you?

OLAADEGBU

Let me quote what our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 13:14 when He quoted Isaiah 6:9-10

"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which says, By hearing you shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive"

I am happy to concede that I was wrong. Jesus did indeed attribute your highlighted quote directly to the Prophet Isaiah. The attribution is a standalone and not witnessed by either Mark or Luke, but no matter. Interestingly the quote Jesus attributes to Isaiah is taken from Isaiah Chapter 6, an early chapter in the first part of the trilogy that separates the actual writings of Isaiah from that of deutero-Isaiah. There is no doubting that Isaiah wrote the first part of the book, at least the first 36 chapters or so.

There are no other attributions by Jesus explicitly to Isaiah. Why? Clearly Jesus most have known a thing or two about the authorship of the book of Isaiah, in John 6:45 he is very careful to make the attribution to vague and unspecified “Prophets”. So availing myself of your curious logic, Jesus knowing full well that Isaiah did not write the errant (Isa 54:13) verse, as well as the others, declined to attribute the verses directly to Isaiah as author. Wouldn’t you agree?

OLAADEGBU
The verses are also applicable to the NT as I stated earlier. The verses in Isaiah chapter 53 are quoted at least 6 times in the NT and these always indicated their fulfilment in our Lord Jesus Christ more than 700 years later.

This is a nonsense. The verses have nothing to do with the NT other than the fact that early NT biblical writers quoted from it falsely ascribing it to Jesus.

OLAADEGBU
You should remember that the Persian emperor Cyrus was named by God about 150 years even before he was born. Cyrus eventually became emperor and thus fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy about 175 years after Isaiah pronounced it.

Yes, but you refuse to answer a very simple question. If the prophecy about Cyrus was revealed to Isaiah by God and came to fruition as you say 175 years later, how come Isaiah was around to give us witness accounts of events ?

OLAADEGBU
I did not only mention the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT I also mentioned the testimonies of the oldest extant manuscript of Isaiah in one of the Dead See Scrolls which gave no indication that it was written by different men. I also gave the witness of Jesus and His apostles who frequently quoted from both sections of Isaiah. The Jews and Christians through the centuries all attributed these two sections to the same Isaiah.

The bolded is a meaningless statement.

I have shown you that majority of the Jews and Christians probably knew no better. Jesus who clearly did, declined to name Isaiah as author beyond chapter 6. Your argument that the authorship of the Book of Isaiah is validated by Jesus and the Apostles because he/they quoted from both sections of the book is worth about a hill of beans at the moment.

OLAADEGBU:

Are we not talking about the doctrine of infallibility, inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures? All Scriptures are surely profitable for doctrine of the said topic.

Your topic is the doctrine of infallibility of the bible. You have based your doctrine on a verse in the bible (a spurious move in itself) which however has no bearing on the matter of infallibility. I've tried to show you by analogy that saying something is profitable does not mean that it is infallible, but quite miraculously you have become too stoopid to grasp the point.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The above does not automatically mean inerrancy.

To start with, the Christian's OT is the same as the Hebrew Bible. All 39 books of the OT are the same Scriptures that make up the Hebrew Scriptures. If the book is not in the Hebrew Scriptures they are therefore disqualified.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/why-66/

You haven't answered my question. What are the criteria for including or excluding books? For instance the Book of Enoch. Please why isn't it in your bible since it was quoted in Jude and in 2Peter? What is your opinion of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church? Is their bible also the inerrant word of God or is it only the KJV?

Those who wrote the basic etymology are not necessarily born again. You need the basic imperatives for acceptable brethren:

Basic
Imperative
Before
Leaving
Earth

Etymology is a study independent of born again status. I can see that you are confused enough to start challenging etymology in favour of your made up Acronyms.