Featured The Origin of Originalism

I find it very interesting, that this way of thinking has now permeated the visible churches and various online Christian forums today.

I'll not debate, either, because I think that the article says enough.
I don't have to be an academic ( although I've done a fair bit of research into the subject ) to know what's going on...

What started out "small" 350 years ago, has gained quite a lot of momentum in these last days.

 

I don't see from this article where Simon actually invented the idea of "only the originals are inspired." The article mentions higher criticism, but textual criticism is lower criticism. Higher criticism certainly induces doubt in the Word of God, but lower criticism strengthens my faith when I see how God has preserved His Word.

For a more accurate view of 17th century bibliology, I recommend Francis Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture. At that time, what was going on was that the Catholics insisted that the Vulgate was inspired (similar to the modern KJV Only movement.) That is what Turretin opposed, and it is a quite different issue from textual criticism.

 

Rather than saying that only the originals were inspired, Simon was not touting any kind of inspiration. What he was doing is now called source criticism, and is a branch of higher criticism, which this article intimates he originated. Not true, really. Protestant sources name Jean Astruc (1684-1766) as the originator.

Here is an example of source criticism. There used to be a theory that four different editors wrote the 5 books of Moses, with the initials JEDP. Thus, Moses did not write them, though he may have provided some material. these letters stand for Jawist/Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly. So supposedly these four editors put the Pentateuch together long after Moses died. Thus, it denies Mosaic authorship, verbal inspiration, and many other things. Far from being the first to believe only the original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired, Simon denied their inspiration.

 

The first proponent of "only the originals are inspired" was the serpent:



Notice that Satan doesn’t plant doubt in the “inspired original” delivered to Adam back in Genesis 2:17; he plants doubt in Eve’s mind who only has a “translated copy” from her husband. This is exactly what Satan does today with the church prefigured by Eve in such a context (2Co.11:1-3).

Satan is not against the “original autographs” for the simple reason that they don’t exist. Only Christian “scholars” waste their time defending non-existent original autographs. In the holy scriptures, Satan always attacks passed-down-often-translated copies for the simple reason that that’s what the saints have in their hands and use! You want to plant doubt in the soldier’s mind as to the weapon he’s got in his hands, not its original out-of-production edition. For some fascinating reason, most Christian scholars are blind that to that simple truth.

 

That is an interpertation. Had Adam lied to Eve or did Eve lie to the Serpent when she said, ". . . God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. . . ."?

I have no reason to doubt God had also told them those very words.

 

Classic.

 

1. This is a fourth hand quote, and thus not trustworthy: Simon to Schaff to this pastor to you. Where did he get this quote? I found a PDF of "Part 1" of this book, but it only goes to p. 233. I assume that p. 393 is either in Part 2 or in some kind of reprint version. Which? Unless I can check the source, I can't tell if this pastor is correctly quoting Schaff in context.
2. Note that the quote from Schaff does not prove anything. He only tells us what he thinks Simon believes, and in a footnote at that. He does not give any quotes from Simon to prove what he says.
3. Note one more time that Simon was a Catholic. You've shown no evidence that he influenced Francis Turretin or any other Protestant.
4. One more time (since you conveniently ignored the first time): Simon is said to have invented higher criticism, according to your post. Higher criticism does not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Simon did not believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, according to what you posted, so he did not believe in an inspired Scripture. Period. End of story.

 

Okay, so I tracked down this footnote in Vol. 2 of Schaff, which I did find easily on the Internet in a PDF form, and there is an entire paragraph in his footnote which is left out of the above quote, and which says (quoting Hodge, or Warfield, don't know which) something similar to what I have said to be my position, that any copy of Scripture is inspired to the exact extent that it represents the original. Schaff wrote in the first paragraph of the footnote on p. 393 of Vol. 2:

"Drs. A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, the successors of Charles Hodge in the theological chair at Princeton, confine inerrancy to these non-existing original autographs. See 'Princeton Review' for 1881, p. 238. 'The historical faith of the Church has always [?] been that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any error, when the ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained, and interpreted in a natural and intended sense.' Comp. Dr. Warfield's article on inspiration in 'The Presbyterian and Reformed Review" for April, 1893, pp. 177-221."

Theological Propædeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology Exegetical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical Including Encyclopaedia, Methodology, and Bibliography: A Manual For Students, Vol. 2 (1893)

 

I'm tire of being misrepresented, so I'm leaving this thread. Have a good one.

 

You do not practice what you preach. You present no verses of the Bible that prove your modern, fabricated, human KJV-only teaching to be true and scriptural.

Perhaps your own subjective KJV-only bias has blinded you to what the Scriptures state and teach.

 

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44). The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16). The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

Since the entire Old Testament was designated by God with names such as "Moses and the prophets," "the law and the prophets," “all the prophets and the law,“ and “the scriptures of the prophets,“ this could be understood to indicate that all the O. T. writers should be regarded as prophets (Luke 16:29, 16:31, 24:27; Matt. 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 26:56; Luke 16:16; John 6:45, Acts 24:14, 26:22, 28:23; Rom. 1:2, 3:21, 16:26). The writer of Hebrews could be understood to describe the entire Old Testament as what God spoke by the prophets (Heb. 1:1). At Luke 16:29, the writer (Moses) is put for his writings. Moses was a prophet (Deut. 34:16). Since the Psalms is sometimes included in the designation "the prophets," it would suggest that the writers of the individual psalms could have been considered prophets. In addition, individual writers of the Psalms were referred to as prophets (Matt. 13:35, Acts 2:30). The writers who received the revelation concerning Christ that would be recorded in the New Testament also seem to be regarded as being prophets or apostles or both (Eph. 3:3-5, 2:20). The N. T. prophets given to the church may refer especially to those prophets that were given revelation that would be written as part of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, Eph. 3:3-5, Eph. 2:20). Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter maintained that the commandment of the apostles is connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, 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, Deut. 8:3).

Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Tim Fellure noted: “Inspiration describes the process of employing human authors to record God’s revelation” (neither jot nor tittle, p. 19). David Cloud maintained that 2 Timothy 3:16 “describes the original process of the giving of Scripture,” and he noted that “the same process is described in 2 Peter 1:19-21” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 213). David Cloud observed: “Inspiration does not refer to the process of transcribing or translating the Bible, but to the process of God giving the words to the men who wrote the Bible” (O Timothy, Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1994, p. 4). David Cloud noted: “The process of inspiration was something that was completed in the apostolic age” (Faith, p. 55). D. A. Waite wrote: “By the term ‘inspiration’ we must understand primarily the process by which God caused His original words to be penned down by the ‘Holy Men of God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21) whom He assigned to that task” (Dean Burgon News, June, 1980, p. 3). D. A. Waite asserted: “The process of inspiration does apply to the original manuscripts (known as the autographs). This process was never repeated” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 106). Waite wrote: “The originals were given by the process of inspiration” (p. 47). Waite noted: “It is true that the process of inspiration applies only to the autographs and resulted in inspired Words—the original Words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek being given by God’s process of breathing out His Words” (p. 56). Steve Combs wrote: “A clear statement of the process and product of inspiration is found in Matthew 4:4” (Practical Theology, p. 34). Charles Kriessman wrote: “Inspiration is a process by which God breathed out His Words from Genesis to Revelation” (Modern Version Failures, p. 46). Jack McElroy wrote: “Sounds like inspiration is a method or process, doesn’t it?” (Which Bible, p. 238). Charles Kriessman quoted Thomas Strouse as stating: “Inspiration is a process whereby the Holy Spirit led the writers of Scripture to record accurately His very Words; the product of this process was the inspired originals” (p. 47). Thomas Strouse wrote: “Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 43). Thomas Strouse noted: “The Holy Ghost came upon holy but fallible men so that they were Divinely moved (pheromenoi) in the process of inspiration to produce the product of inspiration, namely the autographa” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 240). In his note on 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter Ruckman asserted: “The process of ‘inspiration’ is the Holy Spirit breathing His words through somebody’s mouth (2 Pet. 1:21) and these words then being written down” (Ruckman Reference Bible, p. 1591). Irving Jensen noted: “We cannot explain the supernatural process of inspiration, which brought about the original writings of the Bible. Paul refers to the process as God-breathing” (Jensen’s Survey of the OT, p. 19). Gregory Tyree asserted: “This process of inspiration will never again be repeated because the canon has been closed” (Does It Really Matter, p. 32). Does 2 Timothy 3:16 state how scripture is given? Gordon Clark observed: “In ordinary language the word how always refers to a process” (Religion, Reason, p. 138). Did the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to God to the prophets and apostles end with the completion of the New Testament?

 

You are trying to read your human KJV-only opinions into 2 Timothy 3:15-17 passage. It has not been soundly demonstrated at all that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 supports human KJV-only teaching.

Since the words of the New Testament proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the apostles and NT prophets, the supernatural process of inspiration of the NT is involved with the quotations from the Hebrew OT and with the quotations from pagan poets. The process of the giving of the NT by inspiration to the apostles and NT prophets covers all the words of the NT including any quotations.

 

It is the Scriptures that teach that only the words that proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles were given by the process of inspiration.

You do not demonstrate from the Scriptures that the process of copying and that the process of translating is by this process of inspiration.

God gave clear instructions and warnings that relate to copying, which would not have been necessary if the process of copying was a supernatural process controlled directly and solely by God. If God had chosen to make it impossible for any man to add to the word of God, to omit any words of God, or to change any words of God in copying, God would not have needed to make any commands about it or give any instructions or warning concerning it, and all copies of the original-language Scriptures would have all the exact same words.

So-called textual criticism could be considered an attempt to follow God's instructions by removing any words added by men in copying, to restore any words omitted by men in copying, and to correct any changes or alterations introduced by men that would diminish the words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.