Inspired in the originals?

With all due respect Br. Lacy, I believe that the originals must have been inspired. It is difficult for me to believe that God made or allowed anything to even be remotely wrong when He spoke His Word originally to those He chose to pen Scripture. I also believe that God would not have allowed these writers to make any errors.

 

Lacy Evans asked:

Where is the scriptural support that the Bible was only inspired in the originals?

</font>

• This verse says it is talking about Scripture. Prophecies that were spoken but never written were from God, but by definition they are not "Scripture."</font>
• It is also talking about the prophets - those holy men that were given messages from God.</font>
• The impulse to set down prophetic Scripture is of divine origin. In other words, it is inspired.</font>

In other words, according to this passage, the inscripturation of prophecy by the prophets was by divine inspiration. There is no corresponding claim made about the work of translators or copyists.

 

Lacy Evans said:

I'm not sure I understand your point yet. Can you clarify?

It's as clear as I can make it.

Do you believe that only the autographs are inerrant?

God moved the original authors to write, according to 2 Pet. 1:20-21. No corresponding statement is made about copies of those autographs. As I said, I can' make this any clearer.

Perhaps we should divide the debate between "inspiration" and "inerrancy".

If you accept the orthodox view of plenary verbal inspiration, then inerrancy is a necessary corollary of inspiration.

But I apply inspiration to the preservation process.

Based on what? You asked us for a proof-text, and now I'm returning the favour. (No Psalm 12 references, please - that passage has been shown over and over again to have nothing to do with the preservation of the Scriptures.)

In other words, God ultimately, not Paul, wrote I Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. So He can "give" scripture again when it is "lost'.

I posted Scripture showing that the authors were God-guided to inscripturate their prophetic writings. Find me a corresponding Scripture that says God similarly guided the copyists and translators, and your case is made. If not . . . oh well.

(And ultimately, if only the autographs were scriptures, the scriptures are lost.)

How does that follow?

 

Hi Ransom - let's have a look at your passage again, shall we?

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Of course your second sentence is true, but your first is not. The passage is talking about the PROPHECIES that are in the scripture - NOT scripture in general. Also, it is talking about what they SPOKE, NOT what they WROTE.

Was King Solomon a prophet? He wrote some of the OT. Was Mark a prophet? Or Luke? Is their work inspired?

No, it is talking about SPEAKING; not "setting down".

Now don't get me wrong: I, like Lacy, believe the originals were inspired and without error. I also believe the same for the AV. However, MVers give me a real hard time because the Bible doesn't explicitly say the AV is without error. But the simple fact is that the Bible doesn't say what MVers always say, either!

The Bible does NOT say that only originals are inspired. Nor does it say that what God inspires is without error. The argument is usually made that God moved in the original writers, and so inspired the work. He can't make an error, so the inspired word MUST be without error. I agree that the original writers were moved in their writing by God. But he also promised to PRESERVE his word! Who is doing the preserving? It is the same God, who can't make errors! If God wasn't moving in the work of the copyists, etc., then he wasn't preserving. But if he was, then why don't MVers conclude that the result is without error??? This is inconsistent.

 

OK, let's run with this logic and see where it leads.

1.God moved the original writers of Scripture and so what they wrote was perfect and without error of any kind. We all agree with that.

2.God moved the copiers of Scripture (since He was preserving) and so what they copied was perfect and without error of any kind. If that's true, then you should be able to point to a manuscript that is perfect and without error of any kind. We have 5000 or so extant Greek manuscripts but they all differ in some detail. That means that one of those must be the perfect copy of the autographs and the rest contain errors (God didn't move those copiers). So, which one is it? Oh, and how do you know?

Andy

 

WHY do we all agree with that??? And WHY don't we follow that same logic through???

Yes, this seems to be the case. Logically, there seems to be no other conclusion (I would appreciate if any of you guys could show me why I'm wrong). How would we know? Lacy believes it is by the fruit that they produce. I think this is a good, biblical point. Also, we might expect there to be evidence that is more "secular" - e.g. manuscripts that have good evidence of being accurate; or good translators/copyists/etc. Although these are always subjective criteria, I think the AV comes out with very good marks on them.

But without falling into that debate just now, I would like to pursue the matter of "only inspired/perfect in the originals" (which is actually the point of the thread). If we can establish whether or not the perfect word of God exists today, and whether anything that exists now is "inspired", THEN we can go and find it. But otherwise, that debate is in vain.

 

Copies of scriptures were made from the original letters and documents passed from church to church. These were then sorted out to make the canon. Whilst the subsequent copies are not the plenary, verbally inspired scriptures, they are sufficiently accurate for sound doctrine and the message from God to us. At least, that is my view on the matter.

I do not agree that any proof rests in the results from quoting such scriptures. People have misquoted and misapplied scriptures with the same good results despite their inaccuracies. The Holy Spirit is not limited by our finite minds, but can and has used all manner of media.

The problem enters into the picture when we get too fussy about this word or that in the copies and we get carried away with dogma. We often end up with contradictions and legalism, neither of which does justice to the Christian religion or the Christian witness.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The logic would be fine except for one thing, the Bible never says that God moved any or all of the copiers. God in His providence allowed these scribes to make normal copying mistakes. Consequently, we see exactly what we would expect to see -- lots of manuscripts that are very similar but not exactly the same.

Just think about what "inspiration" means from a Biblical perspective. The Greek literally says "God breathed." I think we all know that but have we all thought about what that means. We know that God breathed out His word through penmen who were guided by the Holy Spirit. After the production of the original autographs, non-inspired, non-moved, and non-God-breathed copying took over. We know this is true because (1) the Bible doesn't claim otherwise and (2) the existing set of preserved manuscripts, which all contain errors, prove that it is true.


If you think otherwise, you should be able to point to a flawless manuscript and explain how you were able to identify it.


Andy

 

Nor does it say God was moving all the men who wrote the Bible, when they were writing all the Bible. And even if it did, why do you then conclude that such "moving" made the original without any error? Do you think God preserved his word? Was it not through copiers or translators? And if it was GOD who preserved, then he was working THROUGH THESE MEN! It's the same perfect God!!!

You just said that the Bible does not teach that God moved the copiers. However, it does not teach what you just wrote there. It is a guess. You have ASSUMED that God did not perfectly preserve his word; and then used this to "prove" that God did not perfectly preserve his word! This is what the whole anti-KJVO argument always boils down to, and why this discussion is almost always unfruitful and ends up wasting time that could be better spent doing something else.

 

Applying inspiration to the preservation process is the problem I see with what you are saying, Lacy. Inspiration and preservation are two separate items and God brought them about using distinct methods. Failing to observe those distinctions will cause confusion.

In the doctrine of inspiration, we hold that God "superintended" the writers so that what they wrote is from their own hand, in their own words, and yet is the Word of God, yea, the very words of God. This avoids the extremes of a dictation theory (God told the men word-for-word what to write) or the trance theory (God put the men into a trance and they wrote mindlessly).

If we follow your teaching that manuscripts and/or translations are inspired, we are forced into one of the undesirable extremes given above. If copyists were inspired, then what about when they got a section like "Paul an apostle to the saints in...." The copiest is not Paul. The copyist is not writing to the saint in... either. So, God must either have him in a trance or is dictating to him. The same situation would apply to translators as well.

Stop mixing up doctrines and being careless with your definitions as you have confessed above and clarity may return.

 

Because God is incapable of error. God was the author of the originals. They were a result of His direct action in the same way creation was. God created a perfect world. It was man who corrupted it.

It is the difference between God's actions and God's providence.

For instance, God chose Jacob over Esau. By providence he allowed events that He did not author to accomplish His will. Jacob sinfully cheated Esau out of the blessing. God used the imperfect actions of Jacob to accomplish His perfect will. Most of us probably believe that Jacob would have been blessed anyway but the text doesn't say that there could have been another way. It simply records how God's purpose was accomplished through the sinful actions of men. There are numerous examples of this in scripture and real life.

It is doubtful, in spite of the shrill cries of some, that many scripture copyists willfully corrupted the texts. But some most likely did. It is certain that the best efforts of copyists still contained errors. By God's providence even the fallible efforts of men accomplished His purpose, the preservation of His revelation of Himself and His plan to man.

It is no more necessary to have a perfectly worded Bible to have God's preserved Word than it was for Jacob's efforts to be sinless in order for Him to become the patriarch.

God's perfect will was accomplished in Jacob and God's perfect will is expressed in the Bibles we possess.

You just said that the Bible does not teach that God moved the copiers.</font>[/QUOTE] God's allowing something does not make Him the cause.

No assumption necessary. Simply look at the evidence God has provided- over 5,000 mss that are not the same. To prove what you believe, you must determine that single document out of 5,000+ that has it right then show a succession of perfect documents leading to the one.

You would also be required to reject every translation made to this date. The KJV is based on the TR which was derived from 6-10 different mss. It does not match any of them perfectly nor does it perfectly match any known mss. Therefore, it cannot be the result of perfect preservation.

 

Right, this is exactly my point. Don't argue from silence. God says He will preserve His word but He is silent on the details, including the method and extent. To agrue for the details based on one's own understanding is indeed very dangerous.

Andy

 

There is nothing scripturally sound about your notion of resurrection. It negates preservation. You have thrown together instances or resurrection or restoration and developed a principle that you take liberty to misapply to the topic of Bible versions.

Even if your ideas were true, the selection of which Bible(s) represented these intermittant "resurrections" is purely subjective. You have no more sound reason to claim that the product of 17th century Anglican scholars is the "resurrection" than the LDS has to say that the Book of Mormon is a resurrected text... or than Benny Hinn has to say that his "prophecies" are a manifestation of the "resurrected" Word.

Your theory demands that someone be qualified to re-write scripture. The NT writers wrote by apostolic authority which was only authenticated by seeing the risen Christ. The OT writers spoke as they were moved by God Himself. Their writings were also authenticated by Christ Himself.

The KJV translators do not qualify... nor do any other translators I know of.

 

BTW, the principle that God providentially uses the imperfect and even sinful works of man to accomplish His perfect will is demonstrated throughout scripture starting with the fall of Adam.

Likewise, God has used the imperfect works and words of men to preserve His perfect (complete) Word (revelation of Himself and His plan).