[TheBibleSender]

Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?

By Herb Evans, Ltt.D.
"...the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever..." (1Peter 1:23).
"...the Word of God is quick ... and is a DISCERNER of the thoughts and intents of the
heart..."(Heb.4:12).
We must admit that there was a time when we were terrified at the prospect of defending the
"inspiration" of the A.V. 1611 (King James) Bible. Of course, like many Christians, we were influenced by Bible correcting educators and scholars and their accepted, traditional, man-made, theological definition of "inspiration".
Define Your Terms.
As with all theological definitions, the Bible correcting educator's definition of inspiration is not infallible and is subject to error. Moreover, any error in definition can mean a more serious error in concept. Bible correcting educators, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, have discovered that if they are allowed to define (or redefine) Bible Words, then they can easily establish their pet doctrines and theories. Bible correctors and Jehovah's Witnesses both must be challenged as to whether they have a Scriptural basis for these definitions. Transmission Bible correcting educators contend that only the "Original" transmission of the Scriptures constitutes "inspiration". They hold that the "inspiration of the Scriptures" and the "transmission of the Scriptures" are perfectly synonymous terms. All emphasis, in most fundamental universities, is placed on whether the "Originals" were transmitted mechanically, dynamically, or by illumination; while the quality of the Scriptures, after they have been transmitted, is practically ignored.
The Originals.
The "Original Manuscripts" are lost and no living person has ever seen them ( a serious flaw in the Bible educator's theory). Moreover, if anyone would ever find the "Originals"; they would not be able to tell if they really were the "Originals".
We have been told for years that the Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew. However, no one can actually prove that they were so written. They assume, suppose, surmise, and deduce; but no one can come up with either a Proof Text or concrete evidence.
The first five Books could have been written in Egyptian, the language in which Moses was educated and the country where Israel had lived for years. One thing is for sure, it twarn't Hebrew that Moses was a speakin' down thayer in Egypt", and conversations in the Greek were certainly not spoken in Greek. There had to be some translating going on somewhere either way you look at it. Selah (think of that D.A.W.)! Just because you have second and third century Manuscripts that are written in Greek, does not mean that they were originally written in that language.
Whenever we make dogmatic assertions without the benefit of concrete evidence or a Proof Text; we are guilty of pure assumption. Therefore, if we are expected to submit to this intangible, unprovable basis for an inspired Greek/Hebrew only argument; then if you don't mind, we will look elsewhere for our views.
God Breathed
After the "Originals" had been initially transmitted, or inspired, or "God Breathed" (as our scholar friend love to emphasize the literal meaning of the Greek), what then ? Do the "Originals" cease to be inspired, or do they cease to contain the Breath of God after the initial act of transmission is over? Are they still inspired after forty years have passed ? Are they still alive ? Are they still inspired ? Do they still contain God's Breath ? Let us go a step further; suppose that we made photocopies of the "Originals" before they either perished or were lost. Would the Photocopy Scriptures be alive ? Inspired ? Have God's Breath in them ?
We insist that these questions must be answered with an emphatic "Yes" ! It is not the parchment or the ink that is alive; it is the Words! The inspired Copies of Copies that Timothy knew as a child (II Timothy 3:15-16) were certainly not the "Originals" as admitted by the Bible correctors themselves. God did not preserve the parchment and the ink; He preserved His "Word", the "Scriptures". He did not preserve an uninspired Bible: He preserved an inspired Bible, and it's alive ! It has not expired !
Alive
Anything that God breathes into or inspires is alive for eternity. God breathed in Adam a living soul.
Now, God did not have to breathe into every man a living soul thereafter. (Man's fall complicates our parallel; however, man's soul still lives on somewhere forever). God breathed the breath of life into the Scriptures, never to be breathed into again. The Bible that we have today (A.V. 1611) is alive ! Inspired ! It still has God's Breath in it and will never expire, because it lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23).
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0277.htm

[bibleprotector]

The first five Books could have been written in Egyptian, the language in which Moses was educated and the country where Israel had lived for years.

This kind of argument is flawed, because it can be used to justify anything, or to negate all the pointers in Scripture, tradition and science which are otherwise.

One thing is for sure, it twarn't Hebrew that Moses was a speakin' down thayer in Egypt",

This sounds like liberal theology. Suddenly Moses is stripped of Hebrew, and next we’ll find out that Jehovah is really Yahweh or something. While Moses knew the language of Egypt, he certainly also know how to communicate with the Hebrews.

and conversations in the Greek were certainly not spoken in Greek.

Again, devoid of all proof. The Scripture shows people in the New Testament speaking Greek and speaking Hebrew.

There had to be some translating going on somewhere either way you look at it.

Of course: just look at Pilate’s superscription for a start.

Just because you have second and third century Manuscripts that are written in Greek, does not mean that they were originally written in that language.

This is both baseless and a slur upon the learning of the King James Bible translators. The front page of the King James Bible says “out of the original tongues”. It wasn’t Greek for the OT and it wasn’t Hebrew or so-called “Aramaic” for the NT.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Above, I think some of the points of Herb's article were missed, misunderstood or misrepresented. And I will just look at one right now.

Originally Posted by TheBibleSender quoting Herb Evans

Just because you have second and third century Manuscripts that are written in Greek, does not mean that they were originally written in that language.

And I agree 100%. Even while gladly proclaiming and acknowledging that most, or most all (and possibly fully all) of the NT was written in Greek.

The simplest example is that the Gospel of Mark may very well have been written in Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect, there are solid grammar and historical indicators for this possibility.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

This is both baseless

No, this is clearly not "baseless". Herman Hoskier wrote a full section on the Markan original language question in Codex B and its Allies. Afaik his analysis and conclusions have never been refuted nor even strongly countered. As for other books, there are interesting possibilities with Hebrews (perhaps being transcribed directly from Hebrew to Greek, a type of dual-language 'original') and maybe a couple of other books.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

and a slur upon the learning of the King James Bible translators.

Not at all. This is their main comment on the question in the Preface.

• 10 If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.
• 11 These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive branches empty themselves into the gold.
• 12 Saint Augustine [S.August. 3. de doct. c. 3. etc.] calleth them precedent, or original, tongues; Saint Hierome, fountains.

The King Jame Bible Preface is referencing the transmission and preservation being primarily accomplished through the Hebrew and Greek. This should not and can not be seen as the end of their understanding of autograph languages. In fact they do not even mention here that sections of the OT were likely written and preserved in Aramaic, although of course they were 100% aware of this fact. Why not go into every such detail and theory ? They were simply not writing a treatise on 'the languages of the original autographs'.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The front page of the King James Bible says “out of the original tongues”.

Imho this should best be seen as the original tongues of the received manuscripts, the Reformation Bible. The critics of the King James Bible will make a big thing about the usage of the term "originals" in various places in the 1611 when we point out that the originals (their supposed one valid Bible source) are no longer extant.

And the King James Bible translators were not subject to the puerile argumentation common today from the no-pure-Bible crew. (e.g. The doctrine of "inerrancy only in the original autographs" was about 250 years in the future.) Thus their language may be a bit different than ours today in describing the Bible history, especially the "originals" question. We have to take account of the phoney and false conceptions and principalities that deceived many in order to help 'justify' using the ultra-corrupt alexandrian versions and have a new doctrine that we really do not have the word of God in tangible form. That view essentially was non-existent in 1611.

However one point should be emphasized. The KJB Preface is not the inerrant word of God. The Preface gives us an excellent history, however we are not bound to every historical understanding expressed therein.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It wasn’t Greek for the OT and it wasn’t Hebrew or so-called “Aramaic” for the NT.

Matthew, do you actually see a difficulty anywhere at all if Mark was written in Latin or Graeco-Latin "originally". If so, where and why ?

NT transmission and preservation has been kept primarily through the Greek line, with the Received Text being providentially brought forth leading to the pure and perfect King James Bible.

As an note I will mention that we should not forget that all extant Greek NT manuscripts before the Reformation have some significant lacks. (Generally the preservation in those verses was maintained through the Latin.)

God's hand was at all shortened to bring forth to every ploughman, and even the seminarian, the pure and perfect word of God, first through the Reformation Bible, and then in full precision and purity through its majestic result, the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

While we do not see the Autographs and therefore know by this what language Mark wrote in, it should not be used as an avenue to advance anything that would possibly undermine the Scripture, including the proper tradition of how it came to us.

It is one thing to reason in line with Scripture, it is another thing to just speculate (which is wrong if it be found to contradict Scripture).

For example, if we examine Mark and historgraphy surrounding it, we could ask (hypothesise), Is it consistent that it could have been written not in Greek, but in "Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect"?

There are some indications that we can find from Mark which help. A number of times Mark gives a word in Hebrew and then explains its meaning. Therefore, Mark did not write in Hebrew. It is often said that these words are "Aramaic". But even according to that objectionable theory, Mark's language was not "Aramaic".

Mark is not addressed specifically to a Latin audience. Mark contains Graecisms, like "Elias", etc. Mark was apparently written with Peter's input, a Greek speaker. Also, Mark lived in a time when Greek was still dominant, and his missionary trip was into Greek areas.

It cannot be denied that Mark contains some Latin words, such as "Praetorium", but these can easily be seen to be as Latin words written in Greek.

The issue here is that if we begin to allow that Greek was not the language of the book of Mark, it could be used to further grow to the overthrowing of doctrines of Scripture, like those who now dogmatise upon the inspiration of the 1611 translators.

The article above seems to blur the lines of tradition. No blurring is required if we believe that the KJB contains the inspired Word of God. The blurring occurs as people begin to ascribe inspiration to the translators, and begin to do other things against history, such as denying that the books of Moses could have existed in Greek before the birth of Christ, or (on the other extreme) that the Hebrew of the New Testament was really "Aramaic", etc.

That is why I said that the above article contains some flawed points of reasoning, and several points which are really devoid of proof.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I am still hoping for a more direct answer to this question. Not whether this might lead to other difficulties, whether there is any Holy Spirit and Bible imperative that .. e.g. .. Mark had to be originally penned and transmitted in Greek.

Originally Posted by Steven

Matthew, do you actually see a difficulty anywhere at all if Mark was written in Latin or Graeco-Latin "originally". If so, where and why ?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

While we do not see the Autographs and therefore know by this what language Mark wrote in,

So up to here it looks like Matthew is agreeing with the possibility that the theories of an original non-Greek Mark are conceptually acceptable. Then it switches a bit in the other direction.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

it should not be used as an avenue to advance anything that would possibly undermine the Scripture, including the proper tradition of how it came to us.

Apparently you would like to imply that the historical tradition that Mark wrote in Latin (or a Graeco-Latin dialect) for a Roman and Latin target audience is "improper". If that is your view, please state so clearly, and why.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is one thing to reason in line with Scripture, it is another thing to just speculate (which is wrong if it be found to contradict Scripture).

While I have not gone to the effort to drop lots of URL's into the post, I clearly said above that this is not "speculation". There are strong language and grammatical indicators that are discussed in the Hoskier paper. And there are historical indicators in the early church writers (ironically, my understanding even in some early Peshitta Syriac texts there is a note that Mark wrote in Latin for a Roman audience).

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

For example, if we examine Mark and historgraphy surrounding it, we could ask (hypothesise), Is it consistent that it could have been written not in Greek, but in "Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect"?

Sure, I believe it "could have been" written in Greek. Possibly. However, there is at least one significant difficulty, which I learned about in my earlier days in web-apologetics. Mark gives us a type of rough or simple Greek, very different than Luke and Paul and others. This is actually often attacked by those who would say that his Greek was deficient. However as a translational Greek, from Latin, the grammatical style of Mark fits very well. (Incidentally this is one base from which the incorrect theories that he wrote in Aramaic arose. They use similar input to come to an erroneous conclusion .)

Once I asked a friend of mine who knows Latin well (sans seminarian indoctrination) their opinion on reading Mark in English. Their view -- Latin-ish grammar was at base, it fit very well. That is anecdotal, so if you want it on a scholarly level you have to go to Hoskier.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There are some indications that we can find from Mark which help. A number of times Mark gives a word in Hebrew and then explains its meaning. Therefore, Mark did not write in Hebrew.

This is excellent as a counter to the theories that Mark wrote in Aramaic (or Hebrew). It is pretty much a 100% refutation to those who believe in the integrity of scripture. However the very same internal interpretation from Aramaic or Hebrew fits 100% in Greek and Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect, since in every case the vocabularly is very different than Aramaic or Hebrew.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is often said that these words are "Aramaic". But even according to that objectionable theory, Mark's language was not "Aramaic".

The Aramaic theory has huge flaws, one of which you pointed out above, the internal translations. A second is the unlikelihood of a Roman target audience being familiar with Aramaic. A third is the early church writer traditions and notes, which can support a Latin original but not an Aramaic original.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Mark is not addressed specifically to a Latin audience.

That is true, it is not like the book of Romans in that regard. It is also not addressed specifically to a Greek audience.

However there is a good amount of tradition that places Mark with Peter in Rome. And there would be a need and desire to present the Gospel to those fluent in Latin, for many of whom Greek was a foreign language.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Mark contains Graecisms, like "Elias", etc.

Which can be "Greek words written in Latin", as you indicate in the reverse situation.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Mark was apparently written with Peter's input, a Greek speaker.

This is like those who claim Aramaic as an original language because many of the people who gave input to the NT text spoke Aramaic.

Thus we have a bit of a non sequitur. Whether or not Peter knew or learned Latin. Whether or not Mark was fluent in Greek or not. Whether or not Mark and Peter conversed in Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic or other languages. As long as Mark could write in Latin there is no difficulty based upon the languages written or spoken by others.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Also, Mark lived in a time when Greek was still dominant, and his missionary trip was into Greek areas.

Except that the common language of the Roman populace was Latin. Also Latin was the Roman governmental language so it had influence in a wider area. (As we see in the New Testament.) I think you are mistaken in saying that all the areas Mark was in were "Greek areas" based on Greek being the dominant scholastic language of the region. And whatever else you are basing this on.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It cannot be denied that Mark contains some Latin words, such as "Praetorium", but these can easily be seen to be as Latin words written in Greek.

See above.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The issue here is that if we begin to allow that Greek was not the language of the book of Mark, it could be used to further grow to the overthrowing of doctrines of Scripture

It might, "could be", also be used to grow to claiming the moon is made of green cheese but I am not sure that is relevant.

If you in fact claim this overthrows a Scripture doctrine you would have to be more specific, what doctrine and how.. If not, what is the point? Truth remains truth, even if some jump off the cart and go in another direction.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

like those who now dogmatise upon the inspiration of the 1611 translators.

There are some dots needing connecting here.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

liThe article above seems to blur the lines of tradition. No blurring is required if we believe that the KJB contains the inspired Word of God. The blurring occurs as people begin to ascribe inspiration to the translators,

I really have not made any comments on that view, nor have I looked closely at Herb's writing with that in mind (to see whether he puts inspiration on the men rather than the word of God). Personally I do not see how this relates directly to the language of the original autographs.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

l and begin to do other things against history, such as denying that the books of Moses could have existed in Greek before the birth of Christ

A totally separate issue, one where I assert rather forcefully that the Penteteuch would have been circulating, but likely not the whole OT, using Josephus as one source. How this relates to the Mark NT issue is curious and hard to fathom.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

or (on the other extreme) that the Hebrew of the New Testament was really "Aramaic", etc.

Yet I am quite sure that Herb Evans would strongly counter that view, as would I, so I do not see its connection to the NT autographs language issue.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

That is why I said that the above article contains some flawed points of reasoning, and several points which are really devoid of proof.

If you are claiming that all the NT original autographs must be written in Greek, you have the burden of proof. I make no claim as to the original autograph language of the NT being only one language.

I am neither defending or opposing Herb's article in general. However I see he makes a lot of good points. Before I could get to looking at Herb's article and any criticisms I saw that you were taking a "Greek-only" position for the original NT autographs, which I find rather astounding. That has to be clarified first.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

Steven wrote: "The King Jame Bible Preface is referencing the transmission and preservation being primarily accomplished through the Hebrew and Greek. This should not and can not be seen as the end of their understanding of autograph languages."

What would give authority to the preserved Hebrew or the preserved Greek unless it is because the Autographs were also written in those langauges?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Steven wrote: "The King Jame Bible Preface is referencing the transmission and preservation being primarily accomplished through the Hebrew and Greek. This should not and can not be seen as the end of their understanding of autograph languages."

What would give authority to the preserved Hebrew

Again, there were actually at least two languages involved.in the Tanach (OT) preservation, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

or the preserved Greek unless it is because the Autographs were also written in those langauges?

The authority was vested providentially in the Reformation Bible, ordained by God to gather the words of God into one full and complete and pure and perfect unit. (And Matthew has properly expressed this as part of a process of 'scattering and gathering'.) While also incidentally exposing and defeating the flaws within the Vulgate of the RCC. As I explained above, this was *not* an authority based only on the precise Greek historical extant manuscripts at 1611 or today. (The Latin texts especially played a significant role in the historical transmission and preservation.) The modernist attempt to present and utilize the (Majority/Byzantine) "Greek NT" result in flawed and deficient texts.

It is a major gap in our exposition if we try to present or even intimate an uninterrupted Greek-language transmission from the autographs to the King James Bible. And such uninterrupted one-language transmission would be the only situation where the language of a "Greek original" of ALL the NT would be relevant.

The authority of the word of God is not dependent on the language that Paul or Peter or Mark or Jude orally spoke to an amanuensis or in which the actual letters are penned and transmitted. Multiple languages can be used, multiple language copies can be "originally" penned and languages other than Greek can a part of the process.

One irony (and this is one purpose of Herb Evan's article) is that if we put an unscriptural emphasis on "the Greek" -- the opponents of the King James Bible understandably use that as a wedge to attack our Bible. They claim that all translational authority into English or any other language would be both derivative and inferior. While this is a false claim, it is largely based on the idea that we should be searching for and identifying some "Greek autographs" and using that ethereal text as our base text of perfection.

Since I am largely repeating myself in this post, I will try to avoid doing that again.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

One irony (and this is one purpose of Herb Evan's article) is that if we put an unscriptural emphasis on "the Greek" -- the opponents of the King James Bible understandably use that as a wedge to attack our Bible. They claim that all translational authority into English or any other language would be both derivative and inferior. While this is a false claim, it is largely based on the idea that we should be searching for and identifying some "Greek autographs" and using that ethereal text as our base text of perfection.

I agree with these good points.

[Billie]

Hi Steven ,

Very good post!


Shalom,

Billie

[PB1789]

Steven Avery --- Pretty good post.

There is another aspect of the "Original Tongues" or languages that has some bearing on the topic...( I think so...? ).

While I hold that most ( if not all of the O.T. was written in Hebrew and the N.T. in Greek--- That being the "Lingua Francua" (language of finance) of the Mediterranian World and was understood by many folks even though they were not born in Greece... It is highly probable that other languages were used to convey the Gospel message into the places that the other Disciples/Apostles went to. Those men went to faraway places to spread the Gospel, and all of them got very violently dead!

There was a man named George Lamsa who was of Assyrian heritage. His point of view or theory was that the first N.T. was written in Aramaic-Peshitta language and the Greek came second. He and folks from his home country seem to be the only ones that hold to this idea. If memory serves, the earliest Aramaic-Peshitta texts are about 200 or 300 (?) A.D. , whereas the oldest scrap/fragment of the Book of John is written in Greek and dates to the 1st Century A.D..

Lamsa translated (with some help) the Peshitta into an English Translation. He called it The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, about 1957 or close... It is still in print. I read the Intro/Preface to it some years back when I had some free time at the Book Store. Oddly enough ... for some reason they have examples of where they (Lamsa and co.) have corrected what the A.V./K.J. says... because they believe the A.V./K.J. has some boo-boos because it uses the Greek Texts.

IMO if they want to get folks to read their Aramaic-Peshitta based version they should show the contrasts between the Greek word(s) and the Peshitta word(s), not taking another anti-A.V. shot.

Okay... I mentioned that about Lamsa's version because of Steve Avery's mention above of the Latin, and the Hebrew and Greek languages. It reminded me of an incident at the Book Store..(wished I had kept a log/diary, each day had a twist.)... some fellow came in and wanted the Lamsa Translation because he had been told it was THE BEST one 'cause it didn't come from Greek texts, but rather Aramaic and "eevverryybody" knows that the N.T. was first done in Aramaic-Peshitta...



... rather than tell him he was stooopid and his mother dressed him funny ,,, (remember we where in a store/shop and the idea is that "The customer is always right"... a bogus lie, btw... 1/4 of the customers don't know their left from their right ! ) I said something like--- " Sir are you a Christian ? Yes I am. Good-- then lets look at the Bible itself and see if we can find the answer. He said OK! " I got each of us a copy from our used book section and opened up to Luke 23:38 and John 19:20 . I pointed out to him that it says Pilate had that sign written in 3 languages. Hebrew and Greek and Latin... Not Aramaic ! He didn't know what to say. { I lost a potential sale, but hopefully set him on the right path.}