How did the original manuscripts come about?

[BobinKy]

Preamble

I do not have a bone to pick with anyone here. But I would like to start a discussion about the original manuscripts of the Bible. Please limit your posts to how God may have brought the original manuscripts into existence. Please do not enter any comments about copies or translations.

Discussion Question

In your opinion, how did God bring the original manuscripts of the Bible into existence?​

I know none of us were there at the time. However, we may have some thoughts on the matter, or we may have read or heard a discussion that we can summarize and share.

This is not a troll post. I really would like to hear what some of you have to say. And please no arguing. Let's just hear the theories.


...Bob :wavey:

 

[jbh28]

2 Peter 1:21 "For 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 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

Let's use Paul as an example and his letter to Timothy. Paul is an apostle(Eph 1:1) and is writing a letter to Timothy. He is carried along by the Spirit and kept from error. The "original" is what Paul is writing on and sends to Timothy.

 

[Rippon]

2 Peter 1:21 "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

And notice that it's not "holy men of God"as the KJV has it. That's an interpolation. The Spirit is holy,not men.

 

[JesusFan]

Preamble

I do not have a bone to pick with anyone here. But I would like to start a discussion about the original manuscripts of the Bible. Please limit your posts to how God may have brought the original manuscripts into existence. Please do not enter any comments about copies or translations.

Discussion Question

In your opinion, how did God bring the original manuscripts of the Bible into existence?​

I know none of us were there at the time. However, we may have some thoughts on the matter, or we may have read or heard a discussion that we can summarize and share.

This is not a troll post. I really would like to hear what some of you have to say. And please no arguing. Let's just hear the theories.


...Bob :wavey:

Thank that God worked through each writers unique personalities/skills/experiences etc...

That Luke used MUCH historical data from eye witnesses and contemoprary sources, that Mark took material from peter, like he was source for much of his Gospel...

That the Gospels did share much common material, as writers were Apostles, or else friends to one, but they did not have a "round table" to discuss "lets all write Gospels!"

That pauls letters were a lot of time replies back answering questions raised to him in prior correspondances!

 

[Deacon]

In your opinion, how did God bring the original manuscripts of the Bible into existence?

...Bob :wavey:

New Testament or Old?

Many of the NT writings are epistles, a form of letter intended for public reading.
They probably were written once and sent, although there is the possibility that an amanuensis may have written a number of original copies.
Paul said that he personally signed his letters to demonstrate their authenticity (2 Thes 3:17).


The term “original documents” as it applies to Old Testament Scripture is more complicated.
Intrusions into the text show that what we call the Pentateuch was developed over a long period of time (e.g. Gen. 36:31; Deut 34:10-12).
The “original” as it applies to the Pentateuch is really the final canonized product.

Application of these ideas can twist your mind a bit.

Rob

 

[Jaocb77]

And notice that it's not "holy men of God"as the KJV has it. That's an interpolation. The Spirit is holy,not men.

Actually it was not an interpolation. It is omitted in modern versions. Men have been called holy in different bible versions. There are several places that say: holy prophets.and holy apostles.

 

[John of Japan]

This is actually getting into the area of the doctrine of inspiration. Most conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists hold to verbal plenary inspiration: every word in the original documents was inspired, and the whole Bible is inspired. This is what I believe.

The inspiration took place as the Holy Spirit moved men to write the Scriptures. Each human writer of Scripture was prepared throughout his life for the task by the Lord, yet, God inspired the writing, so that the final product was 100% God's Word, yet 100% written by men.

This view of Scripture is mocked by liberals as being "mechanical dictation," in which the human writers had no say in what they wrote, but were simply robots moved by God. That is even sometimes listed in books on inspiration as a separate theory, but no conservative theologican actually holds to it, it is simply a term used by liberals to make fun of conservatives.

My grandfather deals with this issue in two chapters in his book, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible (which of course I highly recommend). He points out that though some conservative writers such as Louis Gaussen (Divine Inspiration of Scriptures) even use the term "dictation" to refer to the process of inspiration, Gaussen did not mean a mechanical process.

In addition to the two already mentioned, I also recommend The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, by B. B. Warfield, and The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, by Rene Pache. I haven't studied the subject for many years, so alas, I don't have any recent books to recommend.

 

[BobinKy]

Rippon and Jaocb77...

Please take your discussions of translations to another thread. This thread is for discussing how the original manuscripts came about.

Thank you for your understanding.

...Bob

 

[Amy.G]

John of Japan;1695863

The inspiration took place as the Holy Spirit moved men to write the Scriptures. Each human writer of Scripture was prepared throughout his life for the task by the Lord, yet, God inspired the writing, so that the final product was 100% God's Word, yet 100% written by men.

Sounds very familiar.

Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.

Maybe God meant the scriptures to be written that way? Just something I noticed. I'm probably just trying to see something where it's not.

 

[John of Japan]

Sounds very familiar.

Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.

Maybe God meant the scriptures to be written that way? Just something I noticed. I'm probably just trying to see something where it's not.

No, you're on target. There is a definite parallel in verbal plenary inspiration to the hypostatic union of Christ.

 

[Amy.G]

No, you're on target. There is a definite parallel in verbal plenary inspiration to the hypostatic union of Christ.

I think the Holy Spirit gave me that information through your post John. It's amazing how He works! :godisgood:

 

[John of Japan]

I think the Holy Spirit gave me that information through your post John. It's amazing how He works! :godisgood:

Amen!

Of course the differences in the two doctrines are apparent, but God certainly has a wonderful way of working with and through His human servants as in inspiration.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... In your opinion, how did God bring the original manuscripts of the Bible into existence? ...

The original manuscripts were written by men (sorry, gals) as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Most of the writers were prophets (even David is called a prophet) and apostles. We don't know for certain the identity of the human 'authors' of some books (like the Chronicles, and Hebrews). Some books are traditionally attributed to certain men (like Mark) but there is no specific Scripture declaring the human authors involved. Some credits are somewhat ambiguous (like the "John" of Revelation).

However, sometimes the actual writing was done by a court scribe or an amanuensis (a dictational secretary); we even know some these men's names: Baruch wrote scrolls for Jeremiah, and Tertius wrote Romans for Paul. It seems that some writers (like Luke) may have used public records or other source documents (there are several short letters apparently directly copied into the Scriptures). Hebrews 1:1 probably says it best --

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,​

 

[Jim1999]

It was well into the 2nd century before there was a book called the bible. There wee plenty of letters to sort out, penned by as many authors. It is hard to discuss it adequately, but I am sure one could find a history site on the net which would detail the formation of the canon....start with history of Origen...The actual New Testament, as we know it to-day, was finalized by the Council of Laodicea (AD363) and the Council at Carthage (AD397).

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Johathan01]

God's written word has always been available. Before the King James, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Luther's, Geneva and the Bishops Bibles were the authentic word of God, The TR was fine throughout the centuries; it was God's word.

In Germany, the majority still use Luther's Bible. .

To say only the originals were inspired is just simply wrong.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Originally Posted by Amy.G
Sounds very familiar.

Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.

Maybe God meant the scriptures to be written that way? Just something I noticed. I'm probably just trying to see something where it's not.

No, you're on target. There is a definite parallel in verbal plenary inspiration to the hypostatic union of Christ.

I don't want to drag this thread off track, but should one carry this idea to it's logical conclusion it would have an impact on their thinking regarding BV's.

 

[John of Japan]

God's written word has always been available. Before the King James, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Luther's, Geneva and the Bishops Bibles were the authentic word of God, The TR was fine throughout the centuries; it was God's word.

In Germany, the majority still use Luther's Bible. .

To say only the originals were inspired is just simply wrong.

Welcome to the Baptist Board!

Not just the originals, but the Bible in the original languages is what is inspired. This has been the position of conservative Christians down through the years. (And of course this includes the TR.)

 

[John of Japan]

I don't want to drag this thread off track, but should one carry this idea to it's logical conclusion it would have an impact on their thinking regarding BV's.

Hmm. Please elaborate. Or maybe start a new thread....:type:

 

[JesusFan]

This is actually getting into the area of the doctrine of inspiration. Most conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists hold to verbal plenary inspiration: every word in the original documents was inspired, and the whole Bible is inspired. This is what I believe.

The inspiration took place as the Holy Spirit moved men to write the Scriptures. Each human writer of Scripture was prepared throughout his life for the task by the Lord, yet, God inspired the writing, so that the final product was 100% God's Word, yet 100% written by men.

This view of Scripture is mocked by liberals as being "mechanical dictation," in which the human writers had no say in what they wrote, but were simply robots moved by God. That is even sometimes listed in books on inspiration as a separate theory, but no conservative theologican actually holds to it, it is simply a term used by liberals to make fun of conservatives.

My grandfather deals with this issue in two chapters in his book, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible (which of course I highly recommend). He points out that though some conservative writers such as Louis Gaussen (Divine Inspiration of Scriptures) even use the term "dictation" to refer to the process of inspiration, Gaussen did not mean a mechanical process.

In addition to the two already mentioned, I also recommend The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, by B. B. Warfield, and The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, by Rene Pache. I haven't studied the subject for many years, so alas, I don't have any recent books to recommend.

The concept for verbal Plenary Inspiration used to be held as THE view for Evangeklicals/Fundementalists, but started with views on Bible having "limited" Inspiration, just trust spiritual matters discussed in it, but had doubts on historical facts and culture norms factoring in to "bias" the texts...

Wouldn't you say that there are a siazable portionof baptists and other conservative Christians groups that "watered" down this Doctrine?

 

[JesusFan]

God's written word has always been available. Before the King James, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Luther's, Geneva and the Bishops Bibles were the authentic word of God, The TR was fine throughout the centuries; it was God's word.

In Germany, the majority still use Luther's Bible. .

To say only the originals were inspired is just simply wrong.

So you would agree that God had a "Bible" in place before KJV/TR texts?

Such as geneva and Duoy?

Will not derail the OP...

back to the Thread!