-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Best majority text version?
- Thread starter banana
- Start date
Lie #1. Please post where I said "each word was dictated by the Holy Spirit."
As you are the one talking about dictation, not me, you will have to answer that for yourself.
Lie #2.
If the words selected from the man's vocabulary were NOT the words God wanted then the words on paper are not God's word and you no longer have an inspired scripture.
If you are done breaking forum rules we can move on. Who selected the words from man vocabulary? How was it selected.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
I asked if the Holy Spirit dictated the word sarx. Dictation was my question. Your response is above.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Good question. If men chose the words, men make mistakes and therefore there are "inspired" mistakes in the bible. What poppycock!
Limited inspiration is sort of the opposite view of dictation. Whereas dictation sees Scripture as primarily the work of God with the human agent reduced to being a secretary, limited inspiration sees Scripture as primarily the work of man with "limited" inspiration from God. God guides the human authors, but allows them the freedom to express themselves in their works. This view asserts that while there may be factual and historical errors in the Bible, the Holy Spirit guided the authors so that no doctrinal errors resulted from their works. The problem with this view is how one can trust the Bible in doctrinal concerns when it is prone to error in its historical accounts? The reliability of the Bible is called into doubt in this view, and if we can't trust a literary work to get mundane details right, how can we trust it for weightier issues? This view also seems to ignore the fact that while the Bible is a story of redemption from Genesis to Revelation, it is a story told against the backdrop of human history, the doctrine being interwoven within the history. One can't just arbitrarily say that this account is factually inaccurate yet state it contains a kernel of doctrinal truth.
The final view, and the view of orthodox Christianity, is the view of plenary, verbal inspiration. The word plenary means "complete or full," and verbal means "the very words of Scripture." So plenary, verbal inspiration means that every single word in the Bible is the very word of God. The passage quoted above (2 Timothy 3:16-17) uses a unique Greek word, theopneustos, which literally means "God-breathed." Scripture is literally "breathed out" of the mouth of God. Furthermore, in another biblical passage, we see that “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).
This passage gives us a clue as to how God inspired the human authors. We see that men spoke (or wrote) "as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The verb "carried along" is used to speak of a sail being filled by a wind and carrying a boat along the water, which is fitting since the Greek word for "spirit" is also used for "wind." When the human authors were putting pen to paper, the Holy Spirit "carried them along" so that what they wrote were the "breathed-out” words of God. This means that while the actual writings retain the personality of the individual authors (and that is obvious if you read the works of Paul compared to James or John or Peter), they contain the actual words of God.
In closing, it should be noted that there are some things that inspiration is not:
1. Inspiration is not robotic dictation. The personality of the human authors is present in each of the writings.
2. The fact that individual personalities are present in the writings does not mean that God's "control" over them was not perfect. The Holy Spirit superintended the process so that the words written were the exact words God wanted, despite the fallibility of the human authors.
3. Inspiration is limited to the original writings (autographs) not the process of transmission. We know there are minute transmission errors in the copies of manuscripts, but these errors are more grammatical than substantive.
4. The inspiration of Scripture, as we said, is to the verbal level, meaning that it's not just the ideas or thoughts that are inspired, but the very words. Moreover, we don't speak of inspiration of Scripture as we would the inspiration of a great work of literature or a work of music.
5. Finally, inspiration is limited to the specific works of the authors that are included in the biblical canon. Paul wasn't inspired, but Romans was. Furthermore, not all letters of Paul were inspired, but only the ones the Holy Spirit chose to preserve (e.g., see the Corinthian letters in which reference is made to two additional letters to this church of which we have no existing copies).
Biblical inspiration, in a nutshell, is the orthodox view of the church which says that the Bible is the plenary, verbally inspired word of God.
See: Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by Benjamin Warfield, professor of theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. The last of the great Princeton theologians.
Now let's look at some of the various theories of inspiration that have been common in historic Christendom.
The Intuition or Natural Theory is held by the typical Modernist today, who believes that inspiration is merely a higher development of that natural insight into truth which all men posses to some degree. In other words, the Bible is merely a book by men with highly religious motivation, and is similar to a book about science written by men with highly scientific motivation. This theory, holding as it does that natural insight is the only source of religious truth, involves a serious self-contradiction; if the theory is true, then one man is inspired to utter that which another man is inspired to condemn. The Koran and the Bible cannot both be inspired Truth, as they contradict each other. This theory reduces moral and religious truth to the subjective - a matter of private opinion - having no objective reality apart from the opinions of men.
The Illumination or Mystical Theory regards inspiration as merely an intensifying and elevating of the religious perceptions of the believer, the same in kind, though greater in degree, as the illumination of every believer by the Holy Spirit. This position holds that the Bible is not the Word of God, but only contains the Word of God, and that not the writings, but only the writers were inspired. Of course, we must admit that there is an illumination of the mind of the believer by the Holy Spirit as we look into the Word of God, but this illumination only allows us to understand that which has already been written, and cannot impart new truth.
The Dictation or Mechanical Theory holds that inspiration consisted in such a possession of the minds and bodies of the Scripture writers by the Holy Spirit, that they became passive instruments, not participating in any way in the process of inspiration. This theory fails to explain the medical terms used by Luke, the military and sporting terms used by Paul, and the distinct differences between the books written by the various Old and New Testament writers. Of course, we must grant that there are instances when God's communications to mankind were in an audible voice, and took the form of spoken words, and that sometimes God commanded men to commit these words to writing for the edification of all men. However, the Dictation Theory would force this occasional event upon all of Scripture, quite apart from the evidence to the contrary.
The Dynamic or Conceptual Theory states that inspiration is not simply a natural, but also a supernatural fact, and that it is the immediate work of a personal God in the soul of man. This theory holds that the Scriptures contain a human as well as a divine element, so that while they present a body of divinely revealed truth, this truth is shaped in human molds and adapted to ordinary human intelligence, and is thus conceptual (the idea, or thought, or concept is inspired) rather than verbal (the very words are inspired) in its view of inspiration. This is the view held, unfortunately, by many evangelicals today.
The Verbal and Formal Inspiration position was dealt with in the above post.
The Intuition or Natural Theory is held by the typical Modernist today, who believes that inspiration is merely a higher development of that natural insight into truth which all men posses to some degree. In other words, the Bible is merely a book by men with highly religious motivation, and is similar to a book about science written by men with highly scientific motivation. This theory, holding as it does that natural insight is the only source of religious truth, involves a serious self-contradiction; if the theory is true, then one man is inspired to utter that which another man is inspired to condemn. The Koran and the Bible cannot both be inspired Truth, as they contradict each other. This theory reduces moral and religious truth to the subjective - a matter of private opinion - having no objective reality apart from the opinions of men.
The Illumination or Mystical Theory regards inspiration as merely an intensifying and elevating of the religious perceptions of the believer, the same in kind, though greater in degree, as the illumination of every believer by the Holy Spirit. This position holds that the Bible is not the Word of God, but only contains the Word of God, and that not the writings, but only the writers were inspired. Of course, we must admit that there is an illumination of the mind of the believer by the Holy Spirit as we look into the Word of God, but this illumination only allows us to understand that which has already been written, and cannot impart new truth.
The Dictation or Mechanical Theory holds that inspiration consisted in such a possession of the minds and bodies of the Scripture writers by the Holy Spirit, that they became passive instruments, not participating in any way in the process of inspiration. This theory fails to explain the medical terms used by Luke, the military and sporting terms used by Paul, and the distinct differences between the books written by the various Old and New Testament writers. Of course, we must grant that there are instances when God's communications to mankind were in an audible voice, and took the form of spoken words, and that sometimes God commanded men to commit these words to writing for the edification of all men. However, the Dictation Theory would force this occasional event upon all of Scripture, quite apart from the evidence to the contrary.
The Dynamic or Conceptual Theory states that inspiration is not simply a natural, but also a supernatural fact, and that it is the immediate work of a personal God in the soul of man. This theory holds that the Scriptures contain a human as well as a divine element, so that while they present a body of divinely revealed truth, this truth is shaped in human molds and adapted to ordinary human intelligence, and is thus conceptual (the idea, or thought, or concept is inspired) rather than verbal (the very words are inspired) in its view of inspiration. This is the view held, unfortunately, by many evangelicals today.
The Verbal and Formal Inspiration position was dealt with in the above post.
No, the Holy Spirit can guide men to write without making an error without choosing every single word for man.
Here a question to help understand yoir view of word selection. I realize this would never happen, but bear with me.....
If God had me right about a Toyota Camry, and during my description of this vehicle, I could call it a "car" or an "automobile". Both words would be factual and without error. Would the Holy Spirit allow me to choose the word of my liking or would it give me the specific word to use?
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Excellent example of what I was saying. The word is "write" not "right." God, in His Sovereignty, would not have allowed that mistake to be made during the inscripturation process.
Do you believe in the Sovereignty of God? Could one of the writers have penned a word that God did not know in advance that he would choose? Was God Sovereign over His word or was He a mere bystander, at the mercy of the fickle choices of fallen mankind?
I never claimed to be under the superintending Holy Spirit while I WRITE from my cell phone. You point is invalid.
You are avoiding the question
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that should say "Your" point is invalid. It isn't, of course, but I understand your desperation.
Of course I'm not. You are avoiding the most basic of all Christian doctrines, the Sovereignty of God. Either He is or He isn't. Which is it?
Just a little about inspiration of God's Word. Lets say King David had a vocabulary, a style of writing, spoke Hebrew not Greek and so forth. Think of this as God's palate. God chooses from this assortment of words, phrases and styles (David's writing characteristics) and then inspires each and every word and phrase David uses to convey God's inspired word.
Thus the fact that each inspired writer shines through does not preclude that God inspired every word.
Thus the fact that each inspired writer shines through does not preclude that God inspired every word.
I don't hold to dictation that you say you don't hold to, but some how claim the Holy Spirit choose every word and some how that isn't dictation. Even if it was dictated or given word for word from the Holy Spirit that is no irrelevant since we don't have the autographs. So, do we not hold the Word of God in our hands. If we must have a word for word from the Holy Spirit for it to be God's word, then you are the one denying the Sovereignty of God in his ability to provide an authentic voice without us having exact word for word records(which we do not).
The Holy Spirit made sure that what was written down was what God wanted, and that it was exactly what God needed for it to be His word. The Holy Spirit need not give the exact wording for this to happen.
1Peter and 2 Peter are stylistically different. Why? Who was the Holy Spirit with , Peter, his secretary, both???? If the Holy Spirit was giving every single exact word why did the style change? Cause of the use of the different secretary? Most likely that was the reason. Now we have the issue that one of the 2 secretaries wasnt, if not both, didn't 100% reflect Peters style. Or did the Holy Spirit just change the style he gave? The Holy Spirit guided and allowed the writers to write flawlessly by divine intervention. He would not have to dictate every word to do this. God is full capable of getting his creation to do his will with dictating or giving them every exact word.
Again....we do not have His exact word anyway. The autographs are lost and we have translated it into English. No one on this thread will deny we have God's word despite it not being His exact orginal autograph. ....but we still claim to have God's word. We have his Authentic voice, while not having having the actual words.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Hi McCree79, I do not know if scripture answers your question, but I am aware of the on-going debate about the specifics of inspiration. I do not have a dog in that fight. But, whether lead or chose, I believe each and every word in the original autographs was inspired. Therefore I advocate for "word for word" translation philosophy versions such as NASB95 for study.
No doubt the orginals were exactly what God wanted them to be. Non related question. I use a NASB77(Keyword study Bible) that I use to teach on Wednesdays. I like the translation a lot. I have a NASB95, but haven't spent much time in it, other than to cross reference. You find a big difference between the 2?
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
I have not compared them (77 versus 95) but I very much like the elimination of thee and thou in the 95. I usually scrub the 95 by omitting, at least initially the italicized words (usually they are unnecessary), and by using the footnoted "Literally ..." to obtain the most accurate translation.