Were the English translations of the Bible prior to 1611 inspired in the same way you claim the 1611 was inspired?

Specifically I am referring to:

Wycliffe 1395
Tyndale 1525
Coverdale 1535
Bishop 1568
Geneva 1587

Wycliffe's translation was from Latin manuscripts - not the preserved Hebrew and Greek.

The Bible is inspired. God didn't "inspire" it in 1611.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Originally Posted by jerry

Wycliffe's translation was from Latin manuscripts - not the preserved Hebrew and Greek.

The Bible is inspired. God didn't "inspire" it in 1611.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So in your opinion Wycliffe was a corrupt translation that should have been rejected. How about the other four?

[bibleprotector]

Well, God did preserve the Word in Latin too, and Wycliff is a branch off that, but no version is textually perfect except for the one which agrees with the inspired Autographs.

And it can be only one, since all versions, translations, copies, manuscripts etc. all generally differ slightly, or some not so slightly.

Wycliff's translation was not corrupt, though it did contain some corruption.

Only by the logic of faith can we point to the correct Bible to use.

The unbelief approach is to take what is probably the best, but to state that none today are certainly fully perfect.

And the Scripture indicates that there must be a perfect Bible, "Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear" (2 Tim. 4:17a).

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

So in your opinion Wycliffe was a corrupt translation that should have been rejected.

Hi against, .. it is very unhelpful for your own understanding to rush to dismissively place words in other folks' mouths that they never spoke.

Wycliffe's Bible was part of the Reformation process - a process that both brought the Bible to the ploughman and brought forth the true text of the Bible in languages throughout the world. So who are you saying should have 'rejected' Wycliffe's work ? What English Bible was available that they would have 'rejected' it for in the 1400s ? Who here has said that no Bible is superior to a Bible version with impurities, even with our hindsight ?

Please note that even textually the Wycliffe Latin-to-English translation is far superior to what is put out today in the version marketplace of corruption. His Bible includes the Pericope Adultera and the ending of Mark as fully and truly God's word, with no false accusation that these sections are the corruption of man, and he includes major verses like Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma as scripture. By difficult labors Wycliffe gave us the best Bible he was able to give, and paved the way for Tyndale and the Reformers to continue the work more excellently. Only when those further efforts came to fruition in the 1500s and 1600s were men in a position to 'reject' (ie. accept what had become available and was superior) the resulting Bible version of Wycliffe for the far superior Tyndale Bible, and those Reformation Bibles which continued to refine and purify the English Bible. Which is what actually occurred. Did Desiderius Erasmus and William Tyndale and Stephanus (Robert Estienne) and Theodore Beza and John Calvin and Lancelot Andrewes accuse John Wycliffe in his labors, in his bringing forth the Bible into English ? Or did they simply appreciate his efforts as a forerunner of their own labors, a necessary and proper and excellent prelude.

Originally Posted by againstheresies

How about the other four?

Since your concept on Wycliffe was politically dismissive and quite dubious, I tend to doubt that you can have the proper appreciation for the wonderful four predecessor English Bibles you listed that all helped prepare the way for the majestic and pure and perfect King James Bible.

Every one of those four versions you mention are vastly superior to the versions sold in the marketplaces of corruption today. Each one had a role as part of God's providential design to make available to the ploughman his pure and perfect word. Each one then decreased, as the pure and perfect word of God, the King James Bible, increased to its place of majesty and clarity and acceptance as the Holy Bible, the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi against, .. it is very unhelpful for your own understanding to rush to dismissively place words in other folks' mouths that they never spoke.

Wycliffe's Bible was part of the Reformation process - a process that both brought the Bible to the ploughman and brought forth the true text of the Bible in languages throughout the world. So who are you saying should have 'rejected' Wycliffe's work ? What English Bible was available that they would have 'rejected' it for in the 1400s ? Who here has said that no Bible is superior to a Bible version with impurities, even with our hindsight ?

Please note that even textually the Wycliffe Latin-to-English translation is far superior to what is put out today in the version marketplace of corruption. His Bible includes the Pericope Adultera and the ending of Mark as fully and truly God's word, with no false accusation that these sections are the corruption of man, and he includes major verses like Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma as scripture. By difficult labors Wycliffe gave us the best Bible he was able to give, and paved the way for Tyndale and the Reformers to continue the work more excellently. Only when those further efforts came to fruition in the 1500s and 1600s were men in a position to 'reject' (ie. accept what had become available and was superior) the resulting Bible version of Wycliffe for the far superior Tyndale Bible, and those Reformation Bibles which continued to refine and purify the English Bible. Which is what actually occurred. Did Desiderius Erasmus and William Tyndale and Stephanus (Robert Estienne) and Theodore Beza and John Calvin and Lancelot Andrewes accuse John Wycliffe in his labors, in his bringing forth the Bible into English ? Or did they simply appreciate his efforts as a forerunner of their own labors, a necessary and proper and excellent prelude.

Since your concept on Wycliffe was politically dismissive and quite dubious, I tend to doubt that you can have the proper appreciation for the wonderful four predecessor English Bibles you listed that all helped prepare the way for the majestic and pure and perfect King James Bible.

Every one of those four versions you mention are vastly superior to the versions sold in the marketplaces of corruption today. Each one had a role as part of God's providential design to make available to the ploughman his pure and perfect word. Each one then decreased, as the pure and perfect word of God, the King James Bible, increased to its place of majesty and clarity and acceptance as the Holy Bible, the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery:

I am not dismissing Wycliffe or any of the other pre-1611 translations. Jerry dismissed Wycliffe, not me. My question was, “were the English translations of the Bible prior to 1611 inspired in the same way you claim the 1611 was inspire?” It may be helpful to answer that question.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

My question was, “were the English translations of the Bible prior to 1611 inspired in the same way you claim the 1611 was inspire?”

against, Since I have never "claim the 1611 was inspire" the question hangs in the air. I did point out to you that the English Bibles like Tyndale and Geneva, were excellent, albeit not perfect, leading up to the pure and perfect King James Bible. Please understand that you have gotten a bit of a reputation, at least in my book, for illogic and obstinacy and unresponsiveness .. looking at the 'study' thread .. so I personally cannot see much point in a lot of '20 questions' with you. May I suggest you should first search the sincerity and depth of your own Bible views, whatever they may be.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

against, Since I have never "claim the 1611 was inspire" the question hangs in the air.

This question was addressed to the forum and not particularly addressed to you. It is good to hear that you do not claim that the 1611 was inspired in the same way as the originals. But I would suggest to you that most people that comment here disagree with you on that point.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

This question was addressed to the forum and not particularly addressed to you. It is good to hear that you do not claim that the 1611 was inspired in the same way as the originals. But I would suggest to you that most people that comment here disagree with you on that point.

I don't see how you could claim that, since you have been corrected on it more than once now.

God did not need to "re-inspire" his words when the KJV was translated. God's words are inspired (not just were).

Originally Posted by Diligent

I don't see how you could claim that, since you have been corrected on it more than once now.

God did not need to "re-inspire" his words when the KJV was translated. God's words are inspired (not just were).

Well perhaps you are correct. The misunderstanding of the doctrine of inspiration held by members of this forum has most likely spawned a myriad of step children.

Did you want to try and take a stab at the question?