Our Scriptural Confidence

[Anthony Pritchard]

Clarification on Inspiration and the Word of God

Before the thread drifts, I want to make one point clear for anyone reading.

When I speak of the Word of God, I am referring to the Scriptures themselves, not merely the moment of inspiration in the prophets and apostles. Scripture does not limit the authority of God’s Word to the instant it was first spoken. It consistently speaks of the Word as living, enduring, and preserved, not as something that expires once the prophet finishes writing, nor as something that loses its authority in the preserved copy.

Christ said, “My words shall not pass away.” Peter said, “The word of the Lord endureth for ever.” The psalmist said, “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.”

These statements stand on their own. They do not require quote stacking, nor do they depend on assembling long chains of citations of the words of man regarding what Scripture says plainly. The Word of God is eternal because God Himself declares it to be so.

The prophets and apostles were the instruments of inspiration, but the result of inspiration is the Scriptures, and Scripture repeatedly affirms the permanence of what God has spoken. The Word does not lose its identity or authority once written. It does not become “uninspired” the moment the ink dries. It remains what God made it.

I mention this only so the thread stays focused. The Scriptures are the Word of God. The Word of God endures forever. And that is the confidence with which I write.

 

[Logos1560]

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).

The Scriptures do not teach that inspiration is the term for the process concerning the copying of the Scriptures or the term for the process concerning the translating of the Scriptures into other languages after the completion of the giving of the New Testament.

The Scriptures do not say or suggest that inspiration is a quality or attribute that remains in the Scriptures so that copying errors supposedly are inspired when found in a copy or that printing errors or translating errors supposedly are inspired when found in a Bible translation. Words added by men or any errors introduced by men whether copiers, printers, or translators do not have authority as being words of God.

Jim Taylor argued against the idea of derived inspiration, and he noted that “inspiration is not an attribute. It is a process” (In Defense of the TR, p. 39, footnote 33). Jim Taylor maintained that “inspiration does not extend to a translation” (p. 39). Jim Taylor concluded: “Since inspiration is not an ongoing process, nor a quality, ‘derivative inspiration’ is not possible” (p. 327). David Cloud asserted: “Inspiration was the supernatural process by which the Holy Spirit gave chosen words to holy men of old so that what they wrote was the inerrant Word of God. No translation can lay claim to this process. No translation is ‘given by inspiration’” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 214). Jack Koons quoted Thomas Cassidy as writing: “To suggest that the King James Bible is given by direct inspiration of God is to diminish the doctrine of inspiration to the point of being meaningless” (What Is so Special, p. 169).

Do any KJV defenders clearly, consistently, and soundly prove from the Scriptures the idea that inspiration is actually identified in Scripture to be a continuing attribute or quality that will be or at least can be transferred in the later post-NT process of translation? If inspiration was a continuing attribute or quality in the Hebrew Masoretic OT text and in the Textus Receptus NT text that could be transferred during translation, then it would be expected that it should have been transferred to the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, to the 1560 Geneva Bible, or to all the pre-1611 English Bibles. Do KJV-only advocates suggest that the pre-1611 English Bibles had the breath of God still on them? How would the fact of some significant textual differences in the varying printed Textus Receptus editions suggest that all the editions had the continuing quality of inspiration? If inspiration was not transferred to any of the pre-1611 English Bibles, does it suggest that inspiration was not a continuing quality or attribute that could be transferred, or does it suggest that the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus did not have it? Could the same attribute be affirmed and denied of the same things which are dependent upon each other? If inspiration was an attribute or quality of any of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision, it could be regarded as a serious problem for KJV-only reasoning since the makers of the KJV made many changes and revisions to their “inspired” words. From which specific accessible perfect source or sources is it asserted that the 1611 KJV directly obtained this claimed continuing attribute or quality of inspiration? The fact that the KJV was actually made from multiple, imperfect, textually-varying sources makes it difficult if not impossible for KJV-only advocates to explain from which one specific OT source and from which one specific NT source the KJV is supposed to have obtained any continuing quality of inspiration.

 

[Salty]

This thread will be closed no sooner than 1030 GMT 430 am EDT - 1230 am PDT