DERIVATIVE INSPIRATION OR GIVEN BY …



DERIVATIVE INSPIRATION OR GIVEN BY INSPIRATION?

Recently, April 2009, E.L. Bynum has taken Jack Schaap to task in the Plains Baptist Challenger. Phil Stringer, like Jack Schaap, David Cloud, and Don Waite, are all NEO KJB Defenders, and Phil Stringer calls the latest debate over “inspiration” a CIVIL WAR and although Bro. Stringer thinks that this issue should be “vigorously” debated, he, like the others, will not discuss it vigorously with me. Read the rest of the story.

The DBS Story Unfolds

The Bible For Today Group (BFT) and their satellite association, the “Dean Burgon Society,” have always resented calling the King James Bible "inspired," while allowing the extant Hebrew/Greek copies and the copies that Timothy had to be inspired. Some of the Dean Burgon members began to promote the high sounding theological term "derivative inspiration" to get around Don Waite’s aversion against an inspired KJB and began to irritate the powers that be there. Don Waite saw through this David Cloud’s “KJB derivatively inspired” ploy and insisted that all the Dean Burgon Society members must sign a paper denying any kind of KJB inspiration, including "derivative inspiration." To some DBS members’ credit, some would not sign it nor deny inspiration of the King James Bible altogether and resigned from the DBS. Delighted Bible believers applauded David Cloud for his resignation from the DBS and his refusal to sign the paper (We applaud the recent resignation from Hyles/Anderson College over this issue.). Still, even Cloud’s empty rhetoric about “derivative inspiration” muddies the water in regard to “inspiration” of the KJB. After David Cloud’s resignation from the DBS, we had an occasion to discuss the issues with him by e-mail, as we had briefly done with Don Waite. Both Don Waite and David Cloud agree to the Autographs and the Hebrew/Greek copies being inspired. Unlike Don Waite, however, David Cloud claims that the KJB is “inspired” (but only derivatively).

David Cloud dropped the “H” bomb that anyone who taught that the King James Bible was "GIVEN BY INSPIRATION" was a "HERETIC." We attempted, with 2 Timothy 3:16, to pin David Cloud down on this, as we had with Don Waite and Phil Stringer. Albeit, like those NEO KJB Defenders, he abruptly ended our discussion. Well, we immediately realized that the new term "derivative" inspiration was not for us. We realized that the term was a mask for one’s hidden mental reservations and a way to sit on the fence between the two KJB camps, the “KJO camp” and the “Almost KJB camp.” Although the "derivative inspiration" aficionados will deny it, they are advocating two different degrees of inspiration and two differing degrees of scripture quality. They do this by placing theological terms or modifiers (adjective/adverbs) in front of “inspiration” to conceal their mental reservations and agendas, i.e., "direct inspiration” versus "derivatively inspired scripture” and “inspired scripture” versus “given by inspiration.”

Oracles?

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the LIVELY ORACLES to GIVE US . . .

Rom 3:1, 2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the ORACLES OF GOD.

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the ORACLES . . .

1 Pet 4:11 If any man speak, LET HIM SPEAK AS THE ORACLES OF GOD; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for OUR learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1Co 2:13, 14 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

The Oracles are what God speaks through. They are LIVELY ORACLES that are alive. Yes they were committed to the Jewish fathers and the fathers received them, but they received the oracles to GIVE them to us. How do you teach the first principles of the oracles of God, if you do not have the oracles of God? How do you speak as the oracles of God, if you do not have the Oracles of God? Were the oracles “given by inspiration” as some want to emphasize? Are the oracles that we are instructed to teach and speak “given by inspiration” or are they only derivatively inspired? Were the things written aforetime written for OUR learning, and if so, do we have the things written aforetime? Does the Holy Ghost teach from the oracles that we possess?

Inspiration versus Derivative Inspiration

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and IS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, THROUGHLY furnished unto all good works. --2 Tim. 3:13 – 17

But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration [H5397] of the Almighty giveth them understanding. – Job 32:8

Rather than read the double minded and doubled tongued rhetoric from the biased anti--King James Only articles (which parrot each other), you may wish to read, up front, our position and arguments about “inspiration,” USING THE SCRIPTURES ALONE (2 Tim. 3:14 – 17). The word “inspiration” is found in the KJB Bible only twice. In the first instance, it is God’s breath that GIVETH man’s spirit understanding. In the second instance, we see scripture that is both given and understood by God’s inspiration or breath. Can God’s Word be ALIVE without God’s breath? Run to the Hebrew and Greek meaning of “inspiration,” if you wish to remind us that it is God’s breath that is involved. We shall then remind you that the word of God, at this moment, IS QUICK (alive) and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword. The words that Jesus spoke are Spirit and they are life (and still exist as such).

Our NEO KJB Defenders have not continued in the things which they had once learned, the things that they had been assured, the things they had known and from whom they had learned them. They even once knew that the Bible, from a child in Sunday school, was the Holy Scripture. These scriptures once were profitable to them for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:14-17), which is “given by inspiration,” and is still profitable for those things NOW TO US! It is not that we do not understand what many folks mean by the word “inspired,” but rather that we know that when they make too strong of a distinction between “given by inspiration” and “inspired,” then something is rotten in Denmark. Such a watered down version of “inspiration” by derivative Inspirationists is steeped in sophistry rather than in scripture.

Ordinarily, we would give the term “inspired” a pass, except that the Derivative Inspirationists have a hidden ideology and agenda behind their use of the term as they present their challenge to KJO’s. We do not accept this intimated superior quality of the Autographs (which we do not possess), over the surviving scriptures that we do possess. Now, most of us know that there were once the scripture Autographs, then copies from Autographs, then copies from the copies, and then the translations.

All that this term "derivative" inspiration was supposed to be saying was that the non-English Autographs were directly derived from God; the non--English copies were derived from the Autographs; the non--English copies were derived from copies. We know that the English translations were derived from copies of something. We would not have responded to their theological term, if it were only a differentiation between those four groups and had been all that there was to it. The term seemed innocent enough in itself, until we were told that nothing but the Autographs were “given by inspiration.” Due to the HEDGING ideology behind these terms, we must therefore deal with it.

The New Breed of KJB Defender Pretenders

We have 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. . . 2 Pet 1:18, 19.

No prophecy of scripture IS (present tense) of any private interpretation. The Derivative Inspirationists ignore the voice from heaven, which was heard, when the disciples were with him in the holy mount. The NEO KJB Defenders do not help the King James Bible cause but rather divide the KJB Camp, muddy the water, and allow folks to try to hold onto both camps.

Real defenders of the KJB do not need political fence sitters, weasel worders, aisle crossers, or middle of the roaders, who are afraid to go out on a limb to face the Bible Correctors, who might just try to cut off their limbs. This new breed of KJB defenders, however, still wants to make sure that they remain in the KJB TREE to play both sides against the middle. Instead, they try to obstruct and gainsay the methods and efforts of King James Onlies. I have been dealing with the Bible Correctors and the enemies of the KJB, long before (1968) some of these Johnny come late-lies ever came along, without anyone cutting off of my limbs. We reject this recent invention of "given by inspiration" versus “derivatively inspired” by this Quasi KJB Defenders. Their watered down version of “inspiration” is steeped in stilted logic and reason rather than in scripture. 

What about David Cloud

“Yes, I said that to take a different view is HERESY, and that appears to be what has set you fellows off -- that and my negative references to Ruckmanites, which gets too close to home with you fellows. Perhaps that was too strong a word, I don't know, but I will let it stand. I feel strongly about what 2 Timothy 3:16 is teaching. If one teaches contrary to the Scriptures, is that not HERESY? So yes, in my book, to teach that 2 Timothy 3:16 is referring to something other than the giving of Scripture IS HERESY.” -- David Cloud

David Cloud, far from gracious with those that he disagrees, calls folks “heretics” for saying that the KJB “IS given by inspiration.” David Cloud has written a book, “What About Ruckman?” so we felt at liberty to write a portion of this article in regard to “What About Cloud?” The argument of David Cloud is that the KJB is only "derivatively inspired," while the Autographs were “DIRECTLY INSPIRED,” theorizing that the KJB therefore cannot be “given by inspiration." The word “inspired” is not so rendered in either Job 32:8 or 2Tim 3:16, but it is “inspiration” in both places. David Cloud’s own words therefore condemn him, since he says that to teach that 2 Tim. 3:16 is referring to something other than the giving of Scripture IS HERESY.

So, we have correctly and scripturally taught that the word “inspiration” is in regard to the words which were “given by inspiration,” words that Timothy possessed as opposed to the Originals which are not possessed by anyone. However, David Cloud has rather used the extra-scriptural term “inspired” to formulate his teaching. David Cloud, per the context, would have the Holy Scriptures that Timothy (or others) possessed to be only “derivatively inspired.”

Did not the copyists and copyists of copyists “give by inspiration” any of the Hebrew/Greek copies? Especially the copies that Timothy had – the Holy Scriptures? Now, David is trying to make 2 Timothy 3:16 refer to “ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION,” which defies the context. He is now faced with the prospect that ALL scripture is derivatively given by inspiration of God. Or shall he leave us with only inferior "derivatively" inspired copies and an inferior “derivatively” inspired KJB TODAY? What is the difference in the quality and/or the superiority of the Autographs, as opposed to the “preserved” and “inspired” Bible, which David Cloud admits that we now possess? We saw through his mental reservations and stilted logic and the going about to assail KJB Bible believers as “heretics,” who claim that the KJB is “given by inspiration.” In his book “How to Study,” on page 129, David Cloud says: “There are at least two men named Goliath, one killed by David (1 Sam 17) and one killed by Elhanan (2 Sam 21:19).” – David Cloud

2 Sam 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

1 Chron 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath [no italics] the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

Cloud claims that his only final authority is the King James Bible, but he evidently does not like the KJB’s italics nor is he able to cross reference to such supposed discrepancies. There were TWO Elhanans but NOT TWO Goliaths. One Elhanan is found in 2 Sam 21:19, as the son of Jaareoregim; the second is found as the son of DODO in 2 Sam. 23:24 and 2 Chron. 11:26. You can imagine what I am thinking in regard to the DODO. The death of Goliath’s brother was in an entirely different battle. The KJB is right and David Cloud is wrong. Obviously, many, who give David Cloud a pass, do not care whether David Cloud calls KJB believers “heretics,” but they do care about folks exposing David Cloud and other men. They would rather team up with men, who line up with Bible Correctors, who heap the terms “double inspirationist” and “secondary inspirationist” and “heretic” upon Bible Believers, rather than to repudiate one, who believes that Elhanan killed Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19.

How Were the Scriptures Given?

Do you now understand David Cloud’s thinking? There once were scriptures that were “given by inspiration” but they are no more. Also, there is scripture (KJB) that was not “given by inspiration” but IS somehow now become inspired, but no one knows when or how. When and how did the KJB BECOME inspired? Was it when David Cloud said, “Hoc Est Biblios Meum” to pronounce inspired status on the KJB? If you do not believe this Cloudy doctrine of trans-biblio--substantiation and David Cloud’s semantics, then you are a “heretic.” Did God give us the Autographs but not GIVE us any Hebrew or Greek copies? Did God GIVE any translations? Do we not have any scripture extant that is really scripture that is “given by inspiration?” Is it true that the "HOLY" SCRIPTURES, which Timothy POSSESSED, were only "INSPIRED” but not “given by inspiration” per the context?

If something is inspired, when did it become inspired, or why isn’t it “given by inspiration?” If everything but the Autographs were “derivatively inspired,” then who gave the rest to us and how, if every good and perfect gift cometh from above? If something is inspired, why isn’t it given by inspiration? If the Hebrew/Greek copies are "derivatively inspired" and the KJB is "derivatively inspired," what is the difference? What is the difference in regard to superiority or quality? Why would not the direct process of giving scriptures “by inspiration” in the Autographs not produce a continuing product that is still “given by inspiration?”

The scriptures did come to us in different ways. Some were given directly or spoken by God to different human and even inhuman instruments. Balaam gave us some scripture "given by inspiration," and the words were recorded per God's direct superintendence. Balaam’s ass gave us some scripture "given by inspiration" and they were recorded per God's direct superintendence. The first Jeremiah was directly given by God to Jeremiah to dictate to Baruch (Jer. 36:4), and the second Jeremiah was recreated or resurrected per God's direct superintendence through Baruch (Jer. 36:2) with extra words.

The conversations, in the gospels, were recorded by inspiration per God's direct superintendence from one language to another. Are there certain Pauline scriptures which are not "given by inspiration?" Tertius wrote Romans and added some words to Paul's dictation in chapter 16? Were Paul’s words to the Romans “given by inspiration” or only “derivatively inspired” through Tertius?” Were Tertius’ words in Romans 16 “given by inspiration” or “derivatively inspired?” Did the copyists and copyists of copyists “give by inspiration” anything that we have today? Did God not GIVE us the KJB? Is it true no one living has ever seen a Bible given by inspiration and that there never has been a Bible “given by inspiration” since the 1st century?

The TR and Derivative Inspiration

In regard to the Textus Receptus, which are not one but several (which disagree with one another), the true copies? These several TRs were collated, eclectic composites, from no greater than 5 % of the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts, fragments, and pieces extant, by men who decided which manuscripts to use, and which Greek of those selected manuscripts to include into their Receptus. Should not God be the ultimate superintendent in this matter, as we try to observe 2 Timothy 3:14-17 in being careful from where and from whom we learn things? Is it heresy to rely on God to perform both the inspiration and the preservation of the scriptures as we do? What is the difference in the compiled, collated selection of Greek manuscripts for an eclectic Greek Receptus and the compiled, collated selection of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, older English Bibles, and other languages per God's direct superintendence to arrive at what the King James translators selected for their translation? Does God superintend the one but not the other? If so, which and what govern that choice?

We challenged a seminary President, not so very well known, a KJB Defender (supposedly), to prove his "derivative inspiration" by the scriptures, After some hemming around, he chose 2 Tim 3:16 as his proof text. After more wrangling and agreeing that Timothy did not have the Original Autographs, this seminary president could not force the derivative word or even the concept into this context, for the passage said that ALL SCRIPTURE is given by INSPIRATION of God. This makes the placing of adjectives or adverbs in front of the word "inspiration" totally unnecessary and even misleading by implying that there were degrees of inspiration or successive inspirations from the first one. Of course, the seminary man denied different degrees of inspiration but reluctantly agreed that "inspiration" is "inspiration" is "inspiration," even though the tone of his other comments suggested otherwise. The seminary President then appealed to the TR, at one point and heralded the Stephanus 1551 on his desk that he used to deal with Ruckmanites. He tried to bluff us by telling us that ". . . all the editions of Stephen's 1551 NT are inspired," and although he acknowledged minor spelling errors in the TR texts, he claimed that there were no errors of fact in them, something even David Cloud does not or would not do.

Now, David Cloud says that we should choose the Greek that matches the KJB in these cases. You know -- correct the wrong Greek with the correct English. I thought only Dr. Peter Ruckman did that??? We reminded this NEO KJB Defender that in Romans 12:11 of the Stephanus 1551, it says "serving the TIME," while the King James Bible and other TRs say, "serving the LORD." Certainly, to us uneducated KJO's, that seemed like an error of fact somewhere, an inspired error of fact per this theologian’s views. We also reminded him that in James 2:18, in the Stephanus 1551, it says, "by thy works," whereas the King James Bible and other TRs say "without thy works." We could have also cited 1 Tim. 1:4 in the Stephanus which has "dispensation of God," whereas other TRs and the KJB have "godly edifying." So much for errors of fact in one thing or other.

Nevertheless, this supposed KJB defender was unable to tell us how to tell which Greek and Hebrew texts were the correct ones, when they differed from one another, except to give us some nebulous pontification in regard to textual criticism. The come back to all this was that Herb Evans does not know the difference between, verbal and plenary inspiration.

The Extant Texts and Manuscripts

Bible Correctors and Derivative Inspirationists believe what they say BY FAITH, but they will not allow any FAITH on the part of those that believe that the KJB was "given by inspiration." Sometimes, a derivative Inspirationist will concede “given by inspiration,” if the copies are supposedly true copies. But how does one determine whether the copies that we have are “true” copies? Which of the incomplete manuscripts, scraps, texts, and fragments are the faithful copies? Who decides? God or men? Are those scraps compiled by the eclectic compilers of the TR for their work -- true copies? There are many diverse positions to these questions by those who oppose the KJB only position. Let them give us a definitive answer with the name and location of the faithful scriptures, since they have already ruled out everything but the Autographs. If they can’t do that, then they are in a much worse position than those who claim “given inspiration” for the KJB.

Where are God’s word and its availability that has been “given by inspiration?” How can the KJB be as inspired, pure, infallible, and inerrant as the originals,” if they are merely derivatively inspired as is alleged? Were the unsaved Masorete Rabbins' emendations of the copies of copies of the Hebrew “Original Autographs” inspired or infallible? It is difficult for us to imagine how they could be, since both the liberals and conservatives alike tell us that the Masoretes added the vowel points to the Hebrew scripture which they had, between the 8th to the 12th centuries, depending on whom you listen to on the matter. If that is true, the Masoretic Text can bear no resemblance to the ORIGINALS.

We had challenged Don Waite to tell us how it was that the Masoretic Text, which was invented by a bunch of unsaved Jewish Rabbins, adding the Hebrew vowel points to the Hebrew then extant, could still be the original text or even the original language. That was the end of that discussion. Hebrew copies with only consonants, consonants used as vowels, or a few character vowels, which were not vowel points, is what the Rabbins had with which to work?

In many instances, vowel pointed Hebrew words change the meaning of such words significantly. Imagine English words as having only consonants, for example, “BT.” Does that mean boot, but, boat, beat, beet, bet, bat, bit, byte, bite, bait, abate, bout, about, and etc? The Masons do a similar thing with their encoded writings; they remove the vowels. I challenge anyone but a Mason to interpret such books, since they have it committed to memory as do many Rabbins today. They have the consonant-ed Hebrew scripture committed to memory, as the native Hebrews now do in every day life. Still, Strong’s concordance will indicate that there are groups of Hebrew words that have the same consonants but different vowel points. Now, one could resolve the argument by theorizing that the "Original Autographs" originally contained the vowel points and that what we have now, other than the Masoretic Text, is only a condensed Hebrew abbreviation from the Essenes, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Kabala, or similar sources. Unfortunately, we do not have any original Autograph evidence to prove either position beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Preservation, the Result of Being Given By Inspiration

ALL SCRIPTURE IS [NOT WAS] GIVEN BY INSPIRATION . . . and IS [NOT WAS] PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be [NOT COULD ONCE BE] perfect, THROUGHLY furnished unto all good works.” -- 2 Tim 3:14-17

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. -- Rom 15:4

The statement, “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD” is very strong. What we possess in our hands is as sure a word of prophecy as the very voice of God itself, since it is written down. The non-inspired KJB position of the anti KJB only people is either that the KJB is not inspired or it “IS NOT “given by inspiration," for only the Original “WAS given by inspiration” in the Hebrew and Greek Autographs (the Bible Correctors’ sacred languages). Still, we KJO’s believe that ALL scripture that really is scripture is “given by inspiration (the scriptural term).” We have no problem with the original writers and their Autographs being directly “given by the Holy Ghost?” However, if only the direct scripture Autographs are “given by inspiration,” then we do not have any scripture that is really scripture. Do Derivative Inspirationists believe that the "HOLY" SCRIPTURES that Timothy POSSESSED were "INSPIRED” but not “given by inspiration?”

If the scriptures were written aforetime for us, then we possess what was written aforetime, whether scriptures written directly or indirectly, whether the scriptures were “given by inspiration” or inspired. If Derivative Inspirationists must use the old Bible College, outworn theory that makes “inspiration” to be only “original transmission,” and we no longer have GOD’S BREATH in the scriptures which we possess, then Don Waite or the DBS has sold them a bill of goods. If only the directly given, scripture Autographs are “given by inspiration,” per the say so of some anti-KJO’s, there can be nothing preserved extant “given by inspiration.” Since we do not possess the inspired “Original Autographs,” how can we ever prove that there once were “directly” written Autographs “given by inspiration?” or that an infallible, inerrant bible, “given by inspiration,” ever existed?

If it is inspired scripture, it is preserved scripture. If it is preserved scripture, it is inspired scripture! All the NEO KJB Defenders believe and say that the KJB is the preserved inspired word of God in English? So far, so good! Yet, pray tell, what did God preserve? “Un-inspired words” or “inspired words,” words “given by inspiration” or words “not given by inspiration?” Which?

Must we allow Derivative Inspirationists to try to separate the “PRODUCTS” of inspiration from the “PROCESS” of inspiration in their “muddy water” theories? Until they define “God’s preserved words” and what it means, it is still a very weak and vague concept. I can understand their reluctance and unwillingness to face the issue with the English scripture alone, rather than with their extra-scriptural sources such as whatever Professor Whatchamahamaczysz says or what the manuscripts, Texts, Greek, Hebrew, lexicons, dictionaries, and history say. Did Timothy possess the Originals? What did he possess in 2 Tim. 3:15 -- the same thing as in 2 Tim 3:16? How did God preserve them and where are they? Is the KJB the only un-inspired “preserved” word of God?

Inspiration versus Being Moved By the Holy Spirit

2 Peter 1:20, 21 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.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Judges 13:25 And the Spirit of the LORD began to move him at times in the camp of Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.

2 Sam 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house . . .

We are often challenged with 2 Peter 1:20, 21 with the demand that only the writers of the Original Autographs were MOVED (inspired) by the Holy Ghost because the prophecy of old time came by God. Yet only the scriptures are said to be inspired and never the authors. Nevertheless, it says that the men, who were so MOVED by God (not inspired) in this prophecy of Scripture, and they “SPAKE” the prophecy of scripture; so, this is about speaking and not writing in 2 Peter 1:21. Was either of the Authors, the Writers, the donkey, and the false prophet Balaam MOVED by the Holy Ghost? Was Tertius moved by the Holy Ghost? The prophecy of scripture of OLD TIME is still extant, since it also says that no prophecy of the scripture IS of any private interpretation (TODAY).

Must we believe that every time God moves men and things by the Holy Ghost that inspiration is the only thing that is meant? Is it true that men are no longer “moved” by the Holy Ghost TODAY? Inspirationists will concede that God's hand was in the KJB but that His hand was not moving by the Holy Ghost. Even Balaam and his ass were moved by the Holy Ghost to speak some things. Many of the scriptures given to us by the copyists, translators, and Autograph authors were spoken, written, and translated. The alternative view would be to say that the copies and the KJB CAME BY THE WILL OF MAN per 2 Peter 1:21. Who wants to go there?

Dual Inspiration

The "dual inspiration" thing was started by Bible Correctors against Bible believers before these new KJB Defenders ever heard of the issue. Bible believers were called Dual Inspirationists and Secondary Inspirationists for just saying that the KJB was "INSPIRED" back then. Now, King James Bible Defender PRETENDERS are now using the same Bible Corrector terminology on anyone that does not agree with them in their sharp ideological distinction of "inspired" versus "given by inspiration." You must understand that it is the Stringer-ites, the Cloudy-ites, the Schaap-ites, and the BFT-ites that are raising the issue on this today, and we Bible believers are responding. Now, I am in no mood to conform to their copy cat, Bible Corrector lingo or to their self invented "derivative inspiration" lingo or to their convoluted, Ex-Cathedra, derivative ideology. Because they do not understand or do not want to understand what is being said per the Bible terminology, in 2 Timothy 3:16, it is their problem not mine, when they make too sharp a distinction between "inspired" and "given by inspiration."

Conclusion

The conclusion to all this Cloudy rhetoric is that we have no preserved scriptures "given by inspiration" anywhere. How so, when it is ALL SCRIPTURE that is "given by inspiration" and not just the original scripture or merely "some" scripture IS "given by inspiration?" Can the Bible Correctors or even the Derivative Inspirationists prove the ORIGINAL canon, regarding the number of Books in scripture with a thus saith the Lord? If not, how can anyone prove what chapters, verses, and words were originally in the Autographs? How is everyone not in the same position as KJO people, regarding the complete canon? All must believe by faith that God took care of this matter. Or else, we must rely on the historical Catholic councils? Vulgate anyone? Must we rely on someone beside God? Or do we seek another? Both Bible Correctors and derivative Inspirationists have no basis for their take on scriptural revelation, if they try to explain the inspired by the uninspired or even the Autographs "given by inspiration" by what they now call "inspired," they are spinning their wheels. This invention of terms is nothing but weasel wording to portray the KJO brethren to be the ignorant and fanatical brethren? They want folks to listen to only them and to sell their books to them. We are not saying that there is not some good stuff in their writings, but that is the bait. What and where, if any, are the faithful scriptures that were "given by inspiration?" Did they EXPIRE? Were the rest "given by expiration?"

-- by Herb Evans, June 15, 2009

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download