Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

To be honest, I'm undecided on it and I'm not really 100% sure what "double inspiration" actually is! All I know for sure is that what I hold in my hands is the perfect word of God. If a Greek manuscript disagrees with it, I believe my King James Bible.

Some think that is double inspiration, I think it's just believing God preserves His word.

There are cases where the King James disagrees with the TR. I take the King James in those cases. If that means I believe in double-inspiration so be it. I took one year of Greek in Bible school and studied manuscript evidence like everyone else.... but it's a little dry and boring for me, so I don't remember a lot. I'd rather spend more time studying what I believe than why I believe what I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

That's what I think of when I think of double inspiration, but then I haven't done a lot of research into that stream of thought.
These are my thoughts. If the KJV disagrees with a Greek manuscript from the corrupted line - well of course! But if it disagrees with the TR - how can you rely on the translation more than the original? (I know, I know, they aren't the original manuscripts, just copies - but still.) If it wasn't for those originals, we wouldn't have the translation. I really can't understand the train of thought that would exalt the latter translation over the original version - as if the KJV had sprung itself out of the mists and did not rather stand upon the shoulders of the TR - as if those used by God to pen the Bible had originally written only in English! :icon_confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To be honest, I'm undecided on it and I'm not really 100% sure what "double inspiration" actually is!


"Double inspiration" would be the view that the scriptures in the original languages had become tainted/impure/unknowable until they were re-inspired in 1611 in the KJV. Frequently this is tied in with the idea that the KJV contains advanced revelation, and generally includes the idea that the "KJV" should be translated into other languages instead of going back to the original languages(which are regarded as untrustworthy) when making a new translation into another language. Typically this type of view is espoused by the likes of Peter Ruckman and those who learned from him either directly or indirectly ... Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't see any evidence to suggest that the KJB translators were inspired. Scripture clearly tells us the original authors were inspired and that God will preserve His Word, but there is no suggestion that anyone else would ever be inspired to write Scripture or to translate Scripture.

Let's not forget that it wasn't only copies of the ancient texts that were looked at in the making of the KJB. The KJB translators also looked at the previous English language Bibles and followed much of what was already there.

I trust the KJB but if the translators had been inspired, they wouldn't have had to compare all the many things they did, inspiration from God would have been enough.

Another key factor is the KJB translators made no claim of inspiration but rather of the difficult task they had and of the hope they did well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem I have with chosing the TR over the KJV is that you are by default saying the the KJV isn't perfect anymore.

When it comes to translating, I can understand consulting the TR or other original languages as some words have genders ("they" "them" etc) in other languages (such as spanish) that they do not in English. That being said, the KJV is perfect and I'm not going to trust anything over it and I'd never dare correct it with anything that claims to be an original - because the originals do not exisit anymore.

You either believe in preservation or you don't, the King James Bible is either perfect or it's not.

Regardless, if a guy did believe in double inspiration I believe it would be absolutly ridiculous to say that "disqualified" him from being IFB.

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

...you are by default saying the the KJV isn't perfect anymore.


Which edition? 1611, 1620, 1769? I am not talking about spelling differences and I know they are very close, but you did say "perfect" so I want to know what you mean by that. Also the oxford or Cambridge editions? Again I realize we are talking a handful of minor differences, but if we are talking absolutely perfect...


Regardless, if a guy did believe in double inspiration I believe it would be absolutly ridiculous to say that "disqualified" him from being IFB.


I would consider such a individual to be a borderline cultist. It flies in the face of the doctrine of preservation. In many ways it is similar to what Joseph smith taught just "one step back" if you will. Joseph Smith taught that all Christianity had been corrupted including the KJV bible, and that while the KJV was "good" it contained many errors which he "corrected" by "divine revelation". Likewise the extreme fringe of KJVO which holds to things like double inspiration teaches that the scriptures in the original languages were "good" but corrupted till the KJV came along to make things "perfect" again. The general thinking is the same, just a difference of degrees.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there, regardless of what is or is not "IFB" this section has a fairly basic statement of faith that one needs to agree with in order to post in this section. If you can agree with it fine, if you can't agree with it that is your call to make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Which edition? 1611, 1620, 1769? I am not talking about spelling differences and I know they are very close, but you did say "perfect" so I want to know what you mean by that. Also the oxford or Cambridge editions? Again I realize we are talking a handful of minor differences, but if we are talking absolutely perfect...



I would consider such a individual to be a borderline cultist. It flies in the face of the doctrine of preservation. In many ways it is similar to what Joseph smith taught just "one step back" if you will. Joseph Smith taught that all Christianity had been corrupted including the KJV bible, and that while the KJV was "good" it contained many errors which he "corrected" by "divine revelation". Likewise the extreme fringe of KJVO which holds to things like double inspiration teaches that the scriptures in the original languages were "good" but corrupted till the KJV came along to make things "perfect" again. The general thinking is the same, just a difference of degrees.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there, regardless of what is or is not "IFB" this section has a fairly basic statement of faith that one needs to agree with in order to post in this section. If you can agree with it fine, if you can't agree with it that is your call to make.

:goodpost:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Good posting, Seth.

I think the misunderstanding comes in with misunderstanding the definitions of the words. Preservation is exactly that: preserving of something that already exists. God promised to preserve His Word. He did not have to re-inspire it in order for it to be preserved, because it was already available. And God used the men He did to translate it from its original languages - had He not preserved it, there would have been no way to translate it.

Had no documents been available for translation, THEN God would have needed to inspire again. Inspiration, as relating to Scripture, means God-breathed. So, if men could not translate what was already there, there would be no preservation involved, there would be re-inspiration. But that wasn't necessary, because God did preserve His Word. And he allowed men to translate it. He did not breathe every word out, as He did originally, because it was already there. He guided their understanding, which was absolutely necessary, but that is not the same as inspiration.

Double inspiration is actually re-inspiration. If we are to believe the Bible when it tells us God is perfect, there is no need for re-inspiration, is there?

One of the real problems with the idea of double (or actually re-) inspiration is that if God would re-inspire once, perhaps He would do so again. Thus causing many of those who believe in that strongly to believe that they can actually "read between the lines" of scripture to see things in there that aren't. Wouldn't happen? Au contraire, it has. I've heard it from two different "camps," both of which have Bible colleges, so guess what's being taught...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good posting, Seth.

I think the misunderstanding comes in with misunderstanding the definitions of the words. Preservation is exactly that: preserving of something that already exists. God promised to preserve His Word. He did not have to re-inspire it in order for it to be preserved, because it was already available. And God used the men He did to translate it from its original languages - had He not preserved it, there would have been no way to translate it.

Had no documents been available for translation, THEN God would have needed to inspire again. Inspiration, as relating to Scripture, means God-breathed. So, if men could not translate what was already there, there would be no preservation involved, there would be re-inspiration. But that wasn't necessary, because God did preserve His Word. And he allowed men to translate it. He did not breathe every word out, as He did originally, because it was already there. He guided their understanding, which was absolutely necessary, but that is not the same as inspiration.

Double inspiration is actually re-inspiration. If we are to believe the Bible when it tells us God is perfect, there is no need for re-inspiration, is there?

One of the real problems with the idea of double (or actually re-) inspiration is that if God would re-inspire once, perhaps He would do so again. Thus causing many of those who believe in that strongly to believe that they can actually "read between the lines" of scripture to see things in there that aren't. Wouldn't happen? Au contraire, it has. I've heard it from two different "camps," both of which have Bible colleges, so guess what's being taught...

True, and this same "logic" is what has led some to declare that ONLY the KJB is Gods' Word and all non-English speaking people on the planet must learn to read English in order to read the KJB because no translations in any other langauge is "inspired" as they say the KJB is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

80% of the KJV comes from the Geneva Bible which was also translated from the Received Text and previous incomplete bibles. King James didn't like the marginal notes of the Geneva and so he commissioned this Bible which took about 100 or more years to come into widespread use after 1611. Besides the Geneva and KJV, is there another bible written in English that was translated correctly from the Textus Receptus??? I'm not aware of any. Even the NKJV has been corrupted by Wescott and Hort's work.

If there isn't another faithfull translation than it seems to me to be a facetious argument. We're then KJV only because there isn't anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know enough about foreign languages and their translations, but I've been told by solid Believers that there are sound translations in other languages. To be clear, that's not to say that all non-English translations are sound, some most certainly are not and there are some "better" than others, but from what I've been told by some who should know, there are at least some sound non-English translations of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...