According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5).
This verse in the third chapter of 2 Timothy does not actually assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language. This verse does not assert nor teach that the process or method for the making of Bible translations is by inspiration. It has not been soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that inspiration would be a correct term for the way, method, or process by which the original-language Scriptures are copied or are translated into other languages including into English.
The sixteenth verse in 2 Timothy in the KJV stated “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” but the verse does not actually say or assert that it would be later translated by inspiration. There is no mention of the process of translating in the verse.
When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong in the same sense (univocally) to those two classifications: copies and translations. Including all copies of the preserved original-language Scriptures would in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by imperfect men in their copying of Scripture. Including all printed translations of Scripture would make inspiration include any errors made by translators or printers and include the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying Bible translations in different languages. Thus, consistency and just measures in applying the word “all” to Bible translations would be a serious problem for exclusive KJV-only reasoning concerning only one English translation.
If the term Scripture in a univocal sense at 2 Timothy 3:16 is assumed to include Bible translations, KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it should apply only to the KJV and not also to the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and to post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV. Could some KJV-only advocates attempt to read into or to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16 a specific conclusion about translating that has not clearly and legitimately been shown to be actually stated or taught by the verse? Do KJV-only advocates attempt to go beyond what 2 Timothy 3:16 actually states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not directly and clearly refer? The sixteenth verse of 2 Timothy did not actually directly assert that God gave all Bible translations or one English Bible translation by the process or method of inspiration. Do KJV-only advocates use the term inspiration with one meaning (univocally) when they attempt to apply it to Bible translations? Do they use the term Bible translation with one meaning (univocally) if they attempt selectively to try to call one translation Scripture while denying the same for other English Bible translations? Do they attempt to read their own subjective, modern KJV-only opinions that were not in the mind of Paul into this verse? Did the earlier KJV-only opinions shape the later KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16? Is the modern KJV-only interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 possibly an example of eisegesis?
