RIGHT ON!

GOOD.

I thought you all might find this interesting:-

The Cross of Saint Patrick LOL 688 in conjunction with the Banner of the Cross LOL 1310 are holding an Open Meeting to remember the Protestant Reformation in Moneyrea Orange Hall, commencing at 8PM. The Rev Bro Eric Culbertson will address the meeting on the subject of the King James Bible. All visitor, including non members of the Order are welcome.

To wet your appetite our Lodge Historian, Bro Gordon Lucy has penned the following article, pasted below:

Roger Bradley
Cross of Saint Patrick LOL 688


‘The noblest monument of English prose’: the origins of the Authorised Version of the Bible



In March 1603 the English monarchy passed smoothly from the Tudors to the Stuarts. On 5 April James VI and I left Edinburgh for Westminster. James’s progress south was greeted with great enthusiasm. James always fondly remembered the warmth of the reception he received from his new subjects, ‘their eyes flaming nothing but sparkles of affection’.



On James’s way south, allegedly one thousand Puritan ministers – in the so-called ‘Millenary Petition’ – petitioned their new monarch to reform the Church of England. They wished for freedom not to wear surplices, to dispense with the sign of the cross in the baptism service, and for steps be taken to ensure an effective and resident clergy. The petitioners hailed James as ‘our physician to heal these diseases’. In response, James, who enjoyed theological debate, agreed to summon a conference of leading Puritans and selected bishops at Hampton Court Palace. The conference convened there in January 1604.



Assuming that James had Presbyterian sympathies – having been raised in that tradition, the bishops were somewhat nervous. Unaware of James’s deep-seated antipathy to Presbyterianism, the Puritans, on the other hand, viewed the future with optimism. James’s distaste for Presbyterianism was the product of being surrounded by Presbyterians who did not share his exalted concept of kingship. George Buchanan, a Scottish intellectual of European stature and James’s own tutor, regarded the deposition of wicked kings perfectly legitimate. In 1596 Andrew Melville did not mince his wo! rds with James when he told his monarch: ‘I mon tell yow, thair is twa Kings and twa Kingdomes in Scotland. Thair is Chryst Jesus the King and his Kingdome the Kirk, whase subject King James the Saxt is, and of whase kingdome nocht a king nor a lord nor a heid, bot a member.’



In the light of this experience, James was, unsurprisingly, firm in his rejection of any change in the episcopal form of church government. James told Dr John Reynolds, a leading Puritan and the President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford: ‘If you aim at a Scots Presbytery, it agreeth as well with monarchie as God and the devil!’



While James rejected most of the demands of the Puritans, he gave the Puritans a much more sympathetic hearing than is commonly appreciated and he was on occasion critical of the bishops. When Dr Reynolds proposed that there should be a new translation of the Bible, although a majority of those present were not favourably disposed to the idea, James agreed. Admittedly, James and Reynolds had differing motives. Reynolds wished to displace the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 while James was anxious to displace the widely used and Puritan Geneva Bible of 1560. James had a special antipathy for the Geneva Bible’s marginal notes.



The Conference passed a resolution to produce a new translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, without marginal notes, for the use of all the churches in England. This decision was undoubtedly by far the most important result of the Hampton Court Conference.



By 30 June 1604, King James, who was keenly interested in the project, had approved a list – drawn up by Archbishop Bancroft of Canterbury – of 54 of the best Hebrew and Greek scholars to undertake the work, although only 47 actually participated in the project.



The scholars were organized into six companies, two each working separately at Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge, on sections of the Bible assigned to them. The Old Testament was allocated to three companies, the New Testament to two companies and the Apocrypha to one. The work commenced in 1607. The scholars received no remuneration for their work and completed their task in two years.



When each group completed its task, its work was submitted to twelve men, two from each company, in order to curb individual proclivities and to ensure its scholarly and non-partisan character. This review and revision took a further nine months.



The Authorized Version was finally published in 1611. The title page of the Authorized Version described it as ‘newly translated out of the original tongues’ and as ‘appointed to be read in churches’. Neither assertion was strictly true. With respect to the first claim, while paying close attention to the Hebrew and Greek, the new Bible was essenti! ally a revision of existing English translations, notably the Bishops’ Bible and the Geneva Bible. With respect to the second claim, the King, Parliament or the Church never officially sanctioned it.



The Authorized Version did not secure immediate or universal acceptance. It took almost 50 years to displace the Geneva Bible in popular favour. However, thereafter, the Authorized Version held unchallenged sway for 250 years. Few would quibble with Lord Macaulay’s assessment of the literary quality of the translation: ‘The English Bible, a book which, if everything else in our language should perish, would alone suffice to show the whole extent of its beauty and power’. Adam Nicolson – in his recent book Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible – has justly described the Authorized Version as ‘the greatest work in prose ever written in English’.


Winston Churchill



“The scholars who produced this masterpiece are mostly unknown and unremembered. But they forged an enduring link, literary and religious, between the English-speaking people of the world.”


George Bernard Shaw



“The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result … they made a translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States …accepts … it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God.”


Charles Heston



“The King James translation has been described as ‘the monument of English prose’ as well as ‘the only great work of art ever created by a committee’. Both statements are true.



… Shakespeare aside, there’s no comparable writing in the language, as has been observed by wiser men than I.



Over the past several centuries it’s been the single book in most households, an enormous force in shaping the development of the English language. Carried around the world by missionaries, it provided the base by which English is about to become the lingua franca of the world in the next century [meaning the twenty-first century]. Exploring it … was one of the most rewarding creative experiences of my life.”

Which Bible? What year? What edition? How "inspired" or actually how preserved is it? Before I say anything else let me share this... I've read D.A. Waite... David Cloud and others... the names could go on & on... I have several books on my shelf... but again i ask,which Bible? I suppose you have no concern that misprints do exist... either way... I want to not only have a good spirit, to be a blessing but also to share what I can-- read if you care... otherwise ignore this post...

-------------------------- here it goes-- some is quoted-- some is mine-----

Are all current editions of the KJV exactly the same as the 1611 KJV with only updating of spelling and type? Those claims have been made...

Evangelist BILL BRADLEY contended that "the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James Bible printed in 1997" (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 115).

ROY BRANSON Branson claimed that since 1611, "only typographical errors have been corrected, and a handful of insignificant editing adjustments made" (KJV 1611: PERFECT, p. 5).

WALLY BEEBE suggested that the KJV "hasn't changed in hundreds of years"(April-June, 1997, issue of CBN, pp. 2, 13). Beebe claimed "that virtually the 1611 has not changed in over 300 years" (April-June, 1999, p. 2).
Beebe also wrote: "The early revisions were not revisions at all, but instead were corrections. There were misspellings, typographical errors, type changes (from Gothic to Roman), and many other things that took several years to accomplish before the King James Version was in the beautiful and
pure form it is in today" (April-June, 1992, p. 9).

DAVE REAGAN stated: "The King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected" (KJV OF 1611, pp. 14-15). If you have read such
statements in pro KJV & pro TR books and accepted them as accurate, you have been misinformed.

Have any changes been made in the text of the 1611 KJV? Has the 1611 KJV been revised? The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined revison as "the act of reviewing; review; re-examination for correction; as the revision of a book." Roget's Thesaurus listed "revision" and "correction" as synonyms.
An examination of the actual evidence would show that the 1611 KJV has been revised and that changes have been made in the text.

D. A. WAITE admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV's plus "285 minor changes of form" (DEFENDING THE KJV, p. 244).

TIMOTHY MORTON acknowledged that there are "400 or so changes between the 1611 edition and today's that do affect the text" (WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD YOU TRUST, p. 41).

The 1611 KJV did not have "of silver" (Exod. 21:32), "of God" (1 John 5:12), and "Amen" (Eph. 6:24) that present KJV's have.

The 1611 KJV began Jeremiah 38:16 with the wording "So the king sware" while present KJV's have "So Zedekiah the king sware."

Present KJV's have "the city of the Damascenes" (2 Cor. 11:32) while the 1611 KJV has "the city."

The 1611 KJV has "thee" at 2 Timothy 4:13 while current KJV's have "thee and the books."

At Eccl. 8:17, the 1611 KJV has only "seek it out" while current KJV's have "seek it out, yet he shall not find it."

At 2 Kings 11:10, the 1611 KJV only has "the Temple" while current KJV's have "the temple of the LORD."

If the 1611 KJV was infalliable, how could one change have been made in it? The man that most carefully examined the various editions of the KJV was F. H. A. Scrivener. In his 1884 book THE AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE (1611), ITS SUBSEQUENT REPRINTS AND MODERN REPRESENTATIVES, Scrivener has an appendix A that lists the "wrong readings of the Bible of 1611 amended in later editions" (pp. 147-202). Scrivener also has an appendix listing the actual differences between the two issues of the KJV that were both dated 1611.

If the KJV is immutable, why do many variations exist within the various current editions of the KJV printed by different publishers?

At Jeremiah 34:16, the Oxford KJV has "whom he: while the Cambridge KJV has "whom ye."

One Oxford edition of the KJV has "fleeth" at Nahum 3:16 while a Cambridge edition has "flieth."

At 2 Chronicles 33:19, the Oxford KJV has "sins" while the Cambridge KJV has "sin."

At Nahum 3:16, the Oxford edition has "fleeth" while the Cambridge has "flieth."

The Companion Bible edition of the KJV has "LORD" in at least 133 places where most KJV editions have "Lord."

A present edition of the KJV published by the American Bible Society has many variations or differences when compared to other KJV editions. This ABS edition has "sneezings" (Job 41:1, "rearward" (Jos. 6:9), "since" (Ezek. 35:6), "thoroughly" (2 Tim. 3:17), and "hoisted" (Acts 27:40).

The ABS edition of the KJV has "Elijah" (Matt. 16:14), "Hosea" (Rom. 9:25), "Beor" (2 Pet. 2:15), "Uzziah" (Matt. 1:9), "Hezekiah" (Matt. 1:10), etc. There are more differences in the ABS edition.

In fact, Wally Beebe's 1975 Bus Worker's Edition of the KJV has some differences in its text when compared to other editions. Beebe's Edition has "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45 along with other changes. The ABS edition also "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45. Was Beebe responsible for having a KJV published that changed the "immutable" KJV?
The above evidence shows that the claim that there were only spelling changes between the 1611 KJV and present KJV's is incorrect. Perhaps you should examine the actual evidence instead of repeating the inaccurate claims of others.

so how does this all effect the doctrine of preservation?

--------------------------------------------- some questions------------------

1. Why do we "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?

2. Were the KJV translators "LIARS" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

3. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"? Or is it "preserved", because it would certainly help if there would be unity among Fundamentalists on these terms.

4. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" — 1611... or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? Can we just assume that "minor revisions" are not to be equated with "corrections" or problems?

5. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?

6. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?

7. IF... the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?

8. Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560]... English Bibles absolutely infallible?

9. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?

10. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611... or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

11. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol 27, 1881, page 485

12. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116]

13. Is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation — the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John 3:16]."?

----------------------last quotes--------------------------------------

EDWARD HILLS
There are a few places in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Traditional text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. The most important of these differences are due to the fact that Erasmus, influenced by the usage of the Latin-speaking Church in which he was reared, sometimes followed the Latin Vulgate rather than the Traditional Greek text. [The King James Version Defended pg. 200]
The King James Version, however, is mainly a revision of the Bishop's Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised edition of Tyndale's Bible. [ibid pg. 215]
As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's holy Word. [ibid pg. 216]
At John 8:6 the King James translators followed the Bishop's Bible in adding the clause, "as though He heard them not..." After 1769, it was placed in italics in the King James Version. [ibid pg. 221]


(So Edward Hills shares some thoughts also--not taken out of context--interesting...)


-------------

So what does this all mean? Well I'm sure most will agree among themselves that I am stirring up problems, causing dissention and doubt... listen brothers I am not intending to do any such thing but rather to fully listen to what many of our "beloved" men have to say about the Bible, look at some important "changes" and evaluate this with an open heart-- in reference to many posting that the NIV is the non-inspired version... I believe we have to ask ourselves... is the KJV non inspired?
Thank you for your time brothers


gary

Guest Gary,

Please PM me with contact info. I am not posting any more comments to this thread, but would like to chat with you some on the matter.

RJP

Gary,

You must not have have read this entire thread before posting. Go back and read it. You will probably have answers to your questions. If not I will be more than happy than to address them and I am sure everyone else will here, too.

I will answer one right now. Anyone that thinks any modern version is no problem has a incorrect view of the bible as a whole. They are hung up on textual criticism and are not reading the bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. They are more worried about words and text than the whole meaning. Modern Versions are NOT preserved. The KJV is preserved.

Let me ask you this. If you were thirsty, and going to get something to drink, would you choose something that would quench your thirst, or would you look for something that tasted good?

The problem is the drinker. Are they more worried about the drink itself and what it's ingredients are? Or are they more worried about the end result?

If you are more worried about the ingredients, etc. then you will spend all of your time doing scientific experiments, studying chemicals, and other useless things while you die from dehydration.

If you are worried about the end result, being the quenching of your thirst. And you have the faith that the water you drink will do it, then you will survive.

Remember, Pharisees were hung up on texts also. They couldn't see the forest for the trees.

I know this argument is a little unorthodox, but although I do no agree with everything Beebe, Waite, Fox, and even Rice say, I do believe the MV's are useless.

My argument is not one of for the KJV as is one against the modern versions.

Go back and read this whole thread, your putting bullets in dead horses my friend. But if you still need to talk about this, I am not going anywhere.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue May 24, 2005 10:32 AM by Jim.

Well that was a good reply... thanks Jim...
I'm certainly glad this is a diverse body we are in.

Actually I read the majority of the thread and browsed it also Jim and I'm familiar with some the material... i mean what wa smentioned... listen i read what others ahd to say about how most KJO pastors will make allowances for word changes but that doesn't necessarily cover everything i mentioned. Frankly i read what was said but there were some pretty sad arguments lumped in there. To me it sounded like some of the answers were just preaching to the choir...

Listen my concern is with "inspiration" -- of course that was discused... and were probably won't agree... because i don't believe the version itself is inspired, KJV that is. I don't believe versions are inspired in the same manner God spoke in times past to His prophets... etc. etc. they are decribed as holy men speaking as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is the kind of inspiration I'm speaking about. The Holy Spirit didn't just use one set of words... one style... on English versiion... furthermore He didn't directly inspire the version... maybe now I am shooting a dead horse because that view isn't even held to completely in that manner in many independent baptist churches.

Actually i think the one view that people could attempt to hold to is the doctrine of "preservation"... however I find that when preservation is supposed to equal and complete inspiration... well many of the referneces used seem to be removed from their immediate context. Such as Matthew 24:35... this is the answer for many... but in it's detail ( i believe) the verse literally means that the world would pass away and Jesus word (prediction) about that would not fail. He was not referring to a collected canon or organization of books and chapters but this becomes one of the main teachings or principles for preservation or even inspiration of further translations.

Yeah this probably seems like a waste to many of you but let me ask you Jim-- did the Holy Spirit choose a particular set of words just in the Geneva or the Bishop's Bible? The KJV isn't the seventh and perfected translation... it is not inspired in that God breathed out the King James version... if that is your conviction... that is not only respectable but franklly... the Lord bless your firm resolve but how many foreign lands have "inspired versions" or what for those who have no written language period? Ah those might constitute idle questions...

my point: several of the earlier discussions... making an allowance for word changes by merely explaining that from the pulpit is not the solution... a version should be rendered in the language of the culture. It has happened several times already in English... you might disagree... if we want to move deeper... would a modern rendering of the TR be valid? Probably most would say no because the King James is just fine because as you so eloquently stated its all about the refreshing nature... not the ingredients--as though that constitutes rampant textual critiscism. No I believe a person should be able to read it and understand it in their language... studying is one thing but as Jesus spoke to the disciples ome things were hard to be understtod but it wa most often the concepts or mysteries... not the words and grammar. OK rip me up... I realize that many might consider my views "Liberal... modernistic" -- hardly... they are practical.

OH yes i don't believe any modern version is no problem... actually more importantly i don't think a 1611 is perfect and every other is defiled... The KJV is not inspired... The autographs are-- oh yes-- everybody screams "but they are all gone"... well then the least you can do is fall under a doctrine of preservation... sigh

Yes, I agree. That was one of my lamentations about preaching to the choir. It seemed we got into a semantics issue more than once there.

And yes, the term "inspiration" is a very misused and misunderstood term. If we say by inspiration that the KJV was a "first" and "ideas" came up to write truthfully, then no, the KJV was not inspired. If we say that the men who translated were "inspired" so as to preserve the written Word of God. then yes, the kJV was inspired. I see inspiration as the Holy Spirit guiding and influencing the penners so as not to make a doctrinally deadly mistake. Does the KJV have textual mistakes, some errors, and spelling problems? Absolutely!

My problem is that fact that people think we get a better translation today due to "better understanding" of languages, and scholarly intellect. Just the opposite is true. Today we are not smarter. We have been dumbed down over the ages in our ability to use our common sense and critical thinking. We CANNOT translate anything correctly today. Our language today, speaking according to grammar, is the worst it has ever been. The translations we have are not only grammatically incorrect, but spiritually defunct as well. The translations were done by people with agendas directed by Satan. I am not going to argue against the Geneva bible. I have not studied it enough to say yea or nay. But I will tell you this: If it is in any way based off of corrupt Egyptian manuscripts, codeces, or Westcott & Hortt texts, then no, they did NOT have the Word of God.

I believe perservation is held through inspiration. Can we truly trust ourselves without divine influence to preserve something from God? I don't think so. Well, if Matt. 24:35 is what you say it is, and I am not saying it isn't, what will happen after the (prophecy, not prediction, Jesus never predicted) is fullfilled, doesn't that mean fulfilled/passed? I believe He literally meant His Words. His Words will never pass away.

A modern rendering of the TR would NOT be valid, see explanation above.

I believe other people should be able to read it in their own language, but will they? I don't think so. I do not believe they would get the whole Word of God. They need missionaries. Their country has rejected God and God was abandoned. It's biblical. I believe that is why the bible is/was not to be translated into that language. English speaking countries were the only countries that held the Lord as their God. God gave them the bible. Just like he did to the Israelites because He was their God, and just like to the Greeks/Gentiles for Jesus' sake thanks to the Syrophoenician woman. It all makes sense actually.

Remember, if you think are reading something not inspired by God and it is about God, don't believe it. Who better to tell you about God than God Himself, or His ministers?

Just my thoughts,

Love in Christ,

Jim

Well... thank you Jim... insightful, concise (more than mine) and tactful.

Your explanation of inspiration is revealed a little more and many would do well to define what they mean... whether or not i agree is irrelevant because the smallest amount of explanation at least reveals the personal conviction... very helpful

I do have to say that your philosophy about missionary work is again very interesting... but in a nut shell... that is very debatable. In all sincerity, honesty and conviction I believe that at least those who trust in Christ from foreign cultures should be able to read the scriptures in their own tongue. In Acts each person heard the message in theri own language... was it just an event for the day? Whatever you believe about tongues etc. that is not my question or point but they were able to receive God's Word through Peter and hear it in their language... i'm not building a doctriine but even if we "English speaking wor'd" received the Gospel and Christianity in days since long past that isn't a rule of thumb to say that others must hear it from us.

God is not bound by time, location, past events or even culture... we have a solemn duty to make disciple sof all people... but Gentiles in another land and culture received God's Word and also took it to many other people groups... anyhow your thoughts on missions and giving them the Bible or not giving it to them in their tongue doesn't appear to have a strong scriptural principle to it-- even in your illustartion of Israel etc. thanks for the thought... My resolve is that every nation, every tongue, kindred, tribe etc. will one day bow... We are here to reach them and i belleiev we don't have to change their culture... they need to be transformed and having a Bible in their language will only hasten the growth... so if that is a crazy thought or if i jumped to conclusins with your thoughts... my apologies... Lord bless you

moodee -- sorry forgot to sin on...

one last thought-- i believe they will read it in their own language...

moodee

That's OK Moodee, I "sin" on everyday.......

As to your response:

Yes, my statement on foreign languages for the bible is very debatable. I do not argue that at all. But think on this: If we can say that about other foreign countries today, then what did the Chaldeans say 6000-2600 years ago? What about Babylonians? Did they have the oracles of God? No the Israelites did. It was only in Aramaic/Hebrew, not any other language. Now, I understand that we are no longer under the old covenant and it was all passed down via word of mouth and we can get into a very complex discussion about this topic, but please look at this one point. God gives reveals His Word to whichever person/country submits to Him. Show me any other country besides America, which is fading fast, that also worships the Lord as it's God as a whole country. Any. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,...." Why was this commandment given? Why did it have to occur? What the bible is trying to say is not that they need to hear it from us, but by anyone who is a missionary and can read the English or Greek and Hebrew Word of God. This the way the Word of God was given us, and does not need to change or be translated today.

Romans 10:16-18 sums your question up in a nutshell including the fact that everyone, every country has heard and rejected or accepted the Word of God:

Do not apologize. I am enjoying this non-combative approach to debate and I appreciate the soft manner in which you present yourself. I hope I dnot come across as to gruff. A few have been at the bad end of that stick sometimes here. I know I can get pretty defensive, so if I am, I too am sorry.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Jim,

You said, “I understand that we are no longer under the old covenant and it was all passed down via word of mouth”.

Of course I agree that we are not under the Old Covenant, Gentiles never were and the Jews are not now. The covenants, most of them and certainly the Old, were between God and Israel (Rom 9:4).

Regarding "word of mouth" I hope you are not accepting the “oral tradition” transmission of the Word of God idea. Writing was in existence centuries before Moses and he was trained in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.”

Do not accept any suggestion that “inspiration” was anything less than the writers of Holy Scripture recording the very words that God wanted them to write. Not mechanical dictation, but a perfect written record of the very Word of God.

You may not have meant that, but some use those same words – “all passed down via word of mouth” to weaken the doctrine of a God-Breathed Book, inerrant in the original autographs. How could it have been inerrant if there were no autographs, only much repeated oral traditions.

RJP

Isaiah 59:21
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

RJP, then let me ask you this, and please do not try to limit what I say to tradition. What may be tradition to some may be common sense thinking to others.

Are you telling me the Word of God has never been passed down by word of mouth? Are you telling me that the Word of God can only be found on clay tablets, papyrus, parchment, and paper? This is not consistent with scripture. What I am trying to say is that yes, I am aware of the fact that what we have today has been based off of writings. When you talk of "inspiration" (There's that word again), it is when the Word of God is transferred through a person to paper. If there is no inspiration, then I do not believe it is the Word of God, it is a human attempt at being like God, therefore infallible. When a person is inspired by God to write something, then you are going to get the truth because of God's promise to preserve His Word.

Yes, I should have worded what I said a little differently. I read back and see that what I said really was wrong and should not have used those words. I believe the Word of God in reference to word of mouth can still be considered the Word of God according to Is. 59:21. But it all starts from inspiration, then to written word.