The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I believe you are quite mistaken on two points: (1) you are confusing divine inspiration with the illumination or enlightenment or guidance or assistance of the Holy Spirit (which the KJB translators undoubtedly received in large measure) and (2) it was not at "select points" but throughout.
Divine inspiration was strictly reserved for the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists (writers of the Gospels). That was for the original autographs. But the KJB translators received extraordinary help from the Holy Spirit to accomplish their task. The quality of the KJB speaks for itself, and even its opponents praised this translation.
Divine inspiration was strictly reserved for the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists (writers of the Gospels). That was for the original autographs. But the KJB translators received extraordinary help from the Holy Spirit to accomplish their task. The quality of the KJB speaks for itself, and even its opponents praised this translation.
Because when he was appointed head of the church of England, he ordered that a new translation be created that proved his power was of divine authority. Among other things, he eliminated the notes that accompanied the Geneva Bible because they equated kingship with tyranny.
If people didn't accept his idea of a "religious monarchy", they were persecuted. Some people were killed and others fled England. James' persecution of dissenters was the primary reason that the pilgrims risked their lives sailing across the Atlantic to a unknown land (carrying their Geneva Bibles with them.)
It is unbelievable that some people still believe that the translation that King James ordered to justify his rule is the Word of God! They will give all kinds of fallacious reasons but they are, in reality, clinging to centuries-old propaganda.
The King James Bible is not the Word of God! It is one of many translations and, in my opinion, not the best.
If people didn't accept his idea of a "religious monarchy", they were persecuted. Some people were killed and others fled England. James' persecution of dissenters was the primary reason that the pilgrims risked their lives sailing across the Atlantic to a unknown land (carrying their Geneva Bibles with them.)
It is unbelievable that some people still believe that the translation that King James ordered to justify his rule is the Word of God! They will give all kinds of fallacious reasons but they are, in reality, clinging to centuries-old propaganda.
The King James Bible is not the Word of God! It is one of many translations and, in my opinion, not the best.
John Rainolds proposal of a new translation gets the thumbs up from the king.
John Rainolds and the Translation
John Rainolds can appropriately be called the father of the King James Bible, for he it was who forcefully suggested the new translation to the king at Hampton Court on January 16, 1604. His proposal was a bold one, given the cold reception given to his other requests by the king and the bishops. Rainolds, who was in the late stages of consumption, and weakened thereby, carried the burden of advocacy with the other members of his delegation standing "mute as any fish" according to one observer.
When he "moved His Majesty that there be a new translation of the Bible because those which were allowed in the reign of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original", as improbable as it must have seemed, the king embraced Rainolds' idea, and the rest is history. The new Bible altered the course of the English language and culture, it influenced millions if not billions of lives, and thereby the course of human events.
https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/John_Rainolds/
John Rainolds and the Translation
John Rainolds can appropriately be called the father of the King James Bible, for he it was who forcefully suggested the new translation to the king at Hampton Court on January 16, 1604. His proposal was a bold one, given the cold reception given to his other requests by the king and the bishops. Rainolds, who was in the late stages of consumption, and weakened thereby, carried the burden of advocacy with the other members of his delegation standing "mute as any fish" according to one observer.
When he "moved His Majesty that there be a new translation of the Bible because those which were allowed in the reign of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original", as improbable as it must have seemed, the king embraced Rainolds' idea, and the rest is history. The new Bible altered the course of the English language and culture, it influenced millions if not billions of lives, and thereby the course of human events.
https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/John_Rainolds/
-
2
- Show all
Yeah, the link says "https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/John_Rainolds/" so it doesn't say anything about who King James momma was or nothin
Besides, all these guys back them embraced the false doctrines of reformed theology... so they all sketchy ya know.
Besides, all these guys back them embraced the false doctrines of reformed theology... so they all sketchy ya know.
Early 17th Century Englyshe is a dead language.
You're conflating two separate issues. Nice try!
You're conflating two separate issues. Nice try!
Perplexity confirms this fact.
The Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Version Bible, first published around 1900, utilized offset printing technology[1][2]. This edition, also known as the Pure Cambridge KJV, was printed using this method by Cambridge University Press and Collins publishers[3]. Offset printing was a significant advancement in printing technology that allowed for more efficient and high-quality mass production of books like the Bible.
Sources
[1] The Holy Bible: King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition: Unknown https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-James-Version-Cambridge/dp/1434104044
[2] A Statement on the Edition of the King James Bible I Publish - AV1611.com https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-edition.html
[3] The Holy Bible: King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition - Amazon.sg https://www.amazon.sg/Holy-Bible-James-Version-Cambridge/dp/1434104044
[4] [PDF] [SIXTH DRAFT TO] GUIDE TO THE - Pure Cäm´-brìdîe Edition https://www.bibleprotector.com/GUIDE_TO_PCE.pdf
[5] cambridge vs. oxford printing of the kjv. - Page 3 - AV1611 Bible Forum ... https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?page=3&t=76
By Perplexity at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/The-Pure-Cambridge-TS4RrUEWSYKBocUmaqPqEg
Plus, another major advantage of learning the KJV is that helps to unlock in understanding literary treasures (books) in the 1700s and 1800s. More specifically, you can read Christian works from that time period with better clarity if you know the KJV.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Greetings to you today in the name of Jesus Christ.
I hope your well in the Lord this fine day that He has made.
Okay, to get down to business:
Job 38:2 defines inspiration for us. It is the only other time that the word “inspiration“ appears in the KJV, besides 2 Timothy 3:16.
Peter talks about how holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, whereby this relates to Scripture not being of the will of man and neither of any private interpretation. Meaning, they spake by being moved (in the light of the understanding of the Holy Spirit). 1 John 2:27 says that certain believers John is writing to did not need any man to teach them because they had the Anointing. Jesus talked about how the disciples would be guided into all truth by the Spirit. The Spirit would bring in remembrance of what happened while they were with Jesus. This is how we have Scripture today. They were given the inspiration of the Almighty so that their spirit was given understanding to speak and write or to simply write (Like with the case with the Book of Revelation whereby John recorded what he had seen). So the words are inspired because the author was being inspired by God. Without this inspiration mentioned in Job 38:2, there would be no inspired Scripture. The writers of Scripture did not auto-write mindlessly and nor did they discover Scripture already inspired in a cave somewhere. Exceptions to the written Word was of course God writing out the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone (of course).
Side Note:
Speaking of the Ten Commandments: I do not believe the Saturday Sabbath is a command that is applicable to the believer today. You may be able to keep it symbolically but not literally like the Israelite or Jew back in the Old Testament.
The KJV translators worked in separate companies and they all did not always perfectly agree and they took their work to review it together in a larger committee. Really tough passages or verses were sometimes sent out to the public for help, if a person had the right credentials.
Anyway, the existence of marginal notes in the KJV is proof that they were not all in 100% agreement (or in understanding) of what the text said.
Obviously there were Calvinists involved in the translation and they did not always have the correct understanding of many verses in Scripture. This is why it was balanced with those who were not Calvinist on the translation committee. Granted, they were following pre-existing texts. William Tyndale was a great contribution to the work and he was not Calvinist. Some sources say he was reformed but this is not in reference to Calvin’s teachings but a different aspect that is non-Calvinistic. Today you say “Reformed” and it is code word for Calvinism. This is not when the word is used involving the Protestant Reformers.
Sounds like only the originals are inspired mantra that Modern Bible Churches provide in their statement of faith on their website.
However, there is not any verse that says only the originals are inspired.
I can demonstrate double inspiration according to the Bible.
When King Jehoiakim burned the first scroll written by the prophet Jeremiah, God instructed Jeremiah to write out another scroll and add many like words to the second copy. The sin of Judah was described as being engraved with an iron tool and inscribed with a flint point on the tablets of their hearts and on the horns of their altars. Despite the destruction of the first scroll, Jeremiah was commanded to rewrite the words that had been burned by Jehoiakim.
This second copy with many like added words (new words) was also inspired. No more originals. Buy, buy. The originals did not come back from the fire. However, the copy existed and it was inspired. This is proof of double inspiration.
When Paul talks to Timothy about how he knew the Holy Scriptures since he was a child (2 Timothy 3:15), this would have also been a copy he either possessed or it was a copy he read at a Jewish synagogue. Timothy did not have or see the originals. Yet, Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. So what Timothy had was inspired Scripture. It was not uninspired. Some say that the inspiration is merely carried by preservation. But when translating it requires the use of other words to convey the right meaning of the original words. This requires the inspiration of the Almighty as spoken about in Job 38:2.
Yes, I would agree. I just do not think this was all the time (Which is what we see with Peter and John the Baptist). I believe they went back and forth on the translation and made corrections during the translation process, but God was the one who ensured to put the right words in the KJV translation in the end. The hand written master copy was perfect by the working of God when the dust of their work was settled. It was the printing technology that needed to catch up with reflecting their work. Granted, I believe there is the possibility that God could have communicated advanced revelation in the printing errors in the six of the 7 MAJOR KJV editions that came out through time.
I hope your well in the Lord this fine day that He has made.
Okay, to get down to business:
Job 38:2 defines inspiration for us. It is the only other time that the word “inspiration“ appears in the KJV, besides 2 Timothy 3:16.
Peter talks about how holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, whereby this relates to Scripture not being of the will of man and neither of any private interpretation. Meaning, they spake by being moved (in the light of the understanding of the Holy Spirit). 1 John 2:27 says that certain believers John is writing to did not need any man to teach them because they had the Anointing. Jesus talked about how the disciples would be guided into all truth by the Spirit. The Spirit would bring in remembrance of what happened while they were with Jesus. This is how we have Scripture today. They were given the inspiration of the Almighty so that their spirit was given understanding to speak and write or to simply write (Like with the case with the Book of Revelation whereby John recorded what he had seen). So the words are inspired because the author was being inspired by God. Without this inspiration mentioned in Job 38:2, there would be no inspired Scripture. The writers of Scripture did not auto-write mindlessly and nor did they discover Scripture already inspired in a cave somewhere. Exceptions to the written Word was of course God writing out the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone (of course).
Side Note:
Speaking of the Ten Commandments: I do not believe the Saturday Sabbath is a command that is applicable to the believer today. You may be able to keep it symbolically but not literally like the Israelite or Jew back in the Old Testament.
The KJV translators worked in separate companies and they all did not always perfectly agree and they took their work to review it together in a larger committee. Really tough passages or verses were sometimes sent out to the public for help, if a person had the right credentials.
Anyway, the existence of marginal notes in the KJV is proof that they were not all in 100% agreement (or in understanding) of what the text said.
Obviously there were Calvinists involved in the translation and they did not always have the correct understanding of many verses in Scripture. This is why it was balanced with those who were not Calvinist on the translation committee. Granted, they were following pre-existing texts. William Tyndale was a great contribution to the work and he was not Calvinist. Some sources say he was reformed but this is not in reference to Calvin’s teachings but a different aspect that is non-Calvinistic. Today you say “Reformed” and it is code word for Calvinism. This is not when the word is used involving the Protestant Reformers.
Sounds like only the originals are inspired mantra that Modern Bible Churches provide in their statement of faith on their website.
However, there is not any verse that says only the originals are inspired.
I can demonstrate double inspiration according to the Bible.
When King Jehoiakim burned the first scroll written by the prophet Jeremiah, God instructed Jeremiah to write out another scroll and add many like words to the second copy. The sin of Judah was described as being engraved with an iron tool and inscribed with a flint point on the tablets of their hearts and on the horns of their altars. Despite the destruction of the first scroll, Jeremiah was commanded to rewrite the words that had been burned by Jehoiakim.
This second copy with many like added words (new words) was also inspired. No more originals. Buy, buy. The originals did not come back from the fire. However, the copy existed and it was inspired. This is proof of double inspiration.
When Paul talks to Timothy about how he knew the Holy Scriptures since he was a child (2 Timothy 3:15), this would have also been a copy he either possessed or it was a copy he read at a Jewish synagogue. Timothy did not have or see the originals. Yet, Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. So what Timothy had was inspired Scripture. It was not uninspired. Some say that the inspiration is merely carried by preservation. But when translating it requires the use of other words to convey the right meaning of the original words. This requires the inspiration of the Almighty as spoken about in Job 38:2.
Yes, I would agree. I just do not think this was all the time (Which is what we see with Peter and John the Baptist). I believe they went back and forth on the translation and made corrections during the translation process, but God was the one who ensured to put the right words in the KJV translation in the end. The hand written master copy was perfect by the working of God when the dust of their work was settled. It was the printing technology that needed to catch up with reflecting their work. Granted, I believe there is the possibility that God could have communicated advanced revelation in the printing errors in the six of the 7 MAJOR KJV editions that came out through time.
-
1
- Show all
Well, it is not true that all of the translators were Calvinists.
There were also Arminians on the KJV translation committee, too. In addition, when they translated, much of the New Testament was taken from William Tyndale and he did not accept Calvinism at all. You might see certain sources say that Tyndale was Reformed in his teachings, but this was not in reference to Calvin’s teachings if you look deeper. In fact, I just double confirmed it with Perplexity.ai. Now, yes, I know that the word “Reformed” today is a code word for “Calvinism.” I get that. But when we refer to the Reformers in the Protestant Reformation, not all of them were Calvinists. I have had my many debates with Calvinists over the years. Some have been cold and nasty towards me, and others have not been (like Will Kinney, and Rich Christiano, director of the Christian movie, Time Changer). However, while I am commanded to love everyone (even my enemies), I am no friend of Calvinism by any means. It is an unbiblical concept that needs to be preached against, and its origins are tied to a man who was not good.
King James believed that the Puritans and the Geneva Bible were hostile to the monarchy, while he saw the Church of England as reinforcing the king's authority. The fact that the Geneva Bible was not updated is one clue that King James did not agree with their theology. The Geneva Bible had all their Calvinist theology in it (with its added notes).
King James held strong convictions on the Divine right of kings, and even wrote a book on the subject. To that end, he continued to suppress many of the important aspects of the Puritan movement (which is primarily Calvinism), including the many Puritan's Congregationalist and Presbyterian views of Church government. So James was no real supporter of Puritanism and Calvinism.
(Side Note: Keep in mind that while most Puritans held to Calvinistic theology or TULIP, not all Puritans held to Calvinism or TULIP).
Anyway, the KJV translation was also opened to the public at times with difficult verses. In fact, there are many statements in the KJV that easily refute Calvinism like 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Matthew 23:37, and Jonah 3, etcetera. There are many others verses I can reference in the KJV that destroys Calvinism back where it came from. If you were to compare the KJV with the Tyndale translation at TextusReceptusBibles.com, you would see that there was no nefarious changes to the wording by the translators who were Calvinist. No doubt, the Arminians on the translation team would have called them out on it if they did.
Here is a snippet from my write-up involving the KJV and America that ties into this discussion.
So by the 18th century (1700s), the KJV was the primary and dominant translation here in America. It was THE Bible to the American people. The first Bible printed here in America was the Aitken’s Bible. It was even endorsed by Congress. While it was not a financial success, others took up the helm in successfully providing the KJV to the American people. The KJV was the Bible taught in public schools until the early 1960s (Which was coincidentally the time when the Modern Bibles started to become popular). The KJV was used by abolitionists to end slavery here in America. At one point, Frederick Douglas worked with Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln received a felt covered KJV from the black community for his efforts in fighting slavery. The KJV is the most printed book in the world, and has caused great revivals through history. Where are the great revivals with the Modern Versions that change doctrine for the worse? Modern Bibles attack the eternal nature of Jesus Christ. They do not teach you not to have fellowship with a Joel Olsteen (See 1 Timothy 6 in the KJV and compare it with the Modern Bibles).
In any event, I hope this helps, and may God bless you, Stan.
With loving kindness to you in Christ,
A Bible Highlighter.
There were also Arminians on the KJV translation committee, too. In addition, when they translated, much of the New Testament was taken from William Tyndale and he did not accept Calvinism at all. You might see certain sources say that Tyndale was Reformed in his teachings, but this was not in reference to Calvin’s teachings if you look deeper. In fact, I just double confirmed it with Perplexity.ai. Now, yes, I know that the word “Reformed” today is a code word for “Calvinism.” I get that. But when we refer to the Reformers in the Protestant Reformation, not all of them were Calvinists. I have had my many debates with Calvinists over the years. Some have been cold and nasty towards me, and others have not been (like Will Kinney, and Rich Christiano, director of the Christian movie, Time Changer). However, while I am commanded to love everyone (even my enemies), I am no friend of Calvinism by any means. It is an unbiblical concept that needs to be preached against, and its origins are tied to a man who was not good.
King James believed that the Puritans and the Geneva Bible were hostile to the monarchy, while he saw the Church of England as reinforcing the king's authority. The fact that the Geneva Bible was not updated is one clue that King James did not agree with their theology. The Geneva Bible had all their Calvinist theology in it (with its added notes).
King James held strong convictions on the Divine right of kings, and even wrote a book on the subject. To that end, he continued to suppress many of the important aspects of the Puritan movement (which is primarily Calvinism), including the many Puritan's Congregationalist and Presbyterian views of Church government. So James was no real supporter of Puritanism and Calvinism.
(Side Note: Keep in mind that while most Puritans held to Calvinistic theology or TULIP, not all Puritans held to Calvinism or TULIP).
Anyway, the KJV translation was also opened to the public at times with difficult verses. In fact, there are many statements in the KJV that easily refute Calvinism like 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Matthew 23:37, and Jonah 3, etcetera. There are many others verses I can reference in the KJV that destroys Calvinism back where it came from. If you were to compare the KJV with the Tyndale translation at TextusReceptusBibles.com, you would see that there was no nefarious changes to the wording by the translators who were Calvinist. No doubt, the Arminians on the translation team would have called them out on it if they did.
Here is a snippet from my write-up involving the KJV and America that ties into this discussion.
So by the 18th century (1700s), the KJV was the primary and dominant translation here in America. It was THE Bible to the American people. The first Bible printed here in America was the Aitken’s Bible. It was even endorsed by Congress. While it was not a financial success, others took up the helm in successfully providing the KJV to the American people. The KJV was the Bible taught in public schools until the early 1960s (Which was coincidentally the time when the Modern Bibles started to become popular). The KJV was used by abolitionists to end slavery here in America. At one point, Frederick Douglas worked with Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln received a felt covered KJV from the black community for his efforts in fighting slavery. The KJV is the most printed book in the world, and has caused great revivals through history. Where are the great revivals with the Modern Versions that change doctrine for the worse? Modern Bibles attack the eternal nature of Jesus Christ. They do not teach you not to have fellowship with a Joel Olsteen (See 1 Timothy 6 in the KJV and compare it with the Modern Bibles).
In any event, I hope this helps, and may God bless you, Stan.
With loving kindness to you in Christ,
A Bible Highlighter.
-
1
- Show all
The question we must ask yourselves is, “How is Scripture given by inspiration of God?” Then start we need to start digging in Scripture for the answers and we should not look to statements made by churches or what we heard in a sermon online. The Bible should give us the answer, and not men.
Think about how Scripture was given by inspiration. How does that actually work?
Obviously if God speaks, it is God breathed words directly from Him.
But if God speaks to a person or gives them understanding by His Holy Spirit to speak, then they are under inspiration of God and being moved to speak out God’s words, whereby they would be written down by another (usually) whereby they also are given understanding by God to correctly write out those words of God.
Inspiration is not some kind of seal of approval that God does upon His words. God did not need to breathe life into Scripture. Scripture already had life to begin with.
Think about how Scripture was given by inspiration. How does that actually work?
Obviously if God speaks, it is God breathed words directly from Him.
But if God speaks to a person or gives them understanding by His Holy Spirit to speak, then they are under inspiration of God and being moved to speak out God’s words, whereby they would be written down by another (usually) whereby they also are given understanding by God to correctly write out those words of God.
Inspiration is not some kind of seal of approval that God does upon His words. God did not need to breathe life into Scripture. Scripture already had life to begin with.
-
1
- Show all
The answer is found in 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16: We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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... [therefore] All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
"Moved by the Holy Ghost" literally means "borne along" or "carried along" by the Holy Ghost. That is the meaning of φερόμενοι (pheromenoi). It can also mean "to lead" or to "make publicly known". That word "inspiration" is the Greek word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) which literally means "God-breathed". God "breathed" into the writers the actual words they wrote. But the actual mechanism of inspiration was not really disclosed, since it is supernatural. God took total control of the writer at the time Scripture was given. However in the Torah we read again and again that God spoke to Moses. And in the prophets we find that God gave them directions to write certain things.
B.B. Warfield has written a book called "Inspiration and Authority". It is well worth reading. He discusses all this in detail. But the important thing to note is that ALL Scripture is "God-breathed", thus "the Word of God". Which means inspiration demands both inerrancy and infallibility. Many times in the Bible we find "the Scripture says" when actually God said something. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. (Rom 9:17).
"Moved by the Holy Ghost" literally means "borne along" or "carried along" by the Holy Ghost. That is the meaning of φερόμενοι (pheromenoi). It can also mean "to lead" or to "make publicly known". That word "inspiration" is the Greek word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) which literally means "God-breathed". God "breathed" into the writers the actual words they wrote. But the actual mechanism of inspiration was not really disclosed, since it is supernatural. God took total control of the writer at the time Scripture was given. However in the Torah we read again and again that God spoke to Moses. And in the prophets we find that God gave them directions to write certain things.
B.B. Warfield has written a book called "Inspiration and Authority". It is well worth reading. He discusses all this in detail. But the important thing to note is that ALL Scripture is "God-breathed", thus "the Word of God". Which means inspiration demands both inerrancy and infallibility. Many times in the Bible we find "the Scripture says" when actually God said something. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. (Rom 9:17).
Yes, I referred to 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16 as a part of my point.
The Holy Spirit was leading them to speak. This is possible because they were given understanding (i.e., inspiration of the Almighty - Job 38:2) to do so. They were not mindless when they spoke.
It is disclosed. Job 38:2 tells us. The inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding to man’s spirit. So logically that is how they are moved to speak certain words and or write them down. That is how the words are inspired.
Let me give you an example. A scout master may say, “I was inspired to speak on the topic of survival with my scouts.“
So something moved the scout master to speak. He was given some kind of understanding on the dangers of not knowing how to survive in the wilderness. This inspired him to move to speak on the topic. Some idea with the Bible when we talk about inspiration but the source of this inspiration is GOD. He is the one who gave the apostles or OT saints understanding or inspiration to speak or write Scripture.
I am aware of B.B. Warfield and have already talked about him in my KJB write-up. While “Originals Onlyism” appears to have originated with the French Catholic priest, Warfield helped to popularize it. Warfield was also heavily into Modern Textual Criticism. So no thanks. I will stick with Scripture.
The Holy Spirit was leading them to speak. This is possible because they were given understanding (i.e., inspiration of the Almighty - Job 38:2) to do so. They were not mindless when they spoke.
It is disclosed. Job 38:2 tells us. The inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding to man’s spirit. So logically that is how they are moved to speak certain words and or write them down. That is how the words are inspired.
Let me give you an example. A scout master may say, “I was inspired to speak on the topic of survival with my scouts.“
So something moved the scout master to speak. He was given some kind of understanding on the dangers of not knowing how to survive in the wilderness. This inspired him to move to speak on the topic. Some idea with the Bible when we talk about inspiration but the source of this inspiration is GOD. He is the one who gave the apostles or OT saints understanding or inspiration to speak or write Scripture.
I am aware of B.B. Warfield and have already talked about him in my KJB write-up. While “Originals Onlyism” appears to have originated with the French Catholic priest, Warfield helped to popularize it. Warfield was also heavily into Modern Textual Criticism. So no thanks. I will stick with Scripture.