Scripture dictation, mechanical or otherwise

[Marooncat79]

No mechanical dictation

God inspired these men to write inerrantly. It is obvious that their education and ability is evident in word choice, structure, and eloquence.

 

[rlvaughn]

A question concerning the terminology used in this debate.

If a boss called in a secretary and said, "write down what I say," then proceeds to talk while the secretary writes it down, what would we call that -- dictation or mechanical dictation?

Thanks.

 

[Stratton7]

A question concerning the terminology used in this debate.

If a boss called in a secretary and said, "write down what I say," then proceeds to talk while the secretary writes it down, what would we call that -- dictation or mechanical dictation?

Thanks.

I personally think that’d be dictation whereas mechanical would be forced like a robot. However that is just my “current” take on it (not set in stone) so far and am curious myself as to how it’s viewed by others.

 

[John of Japan]

A question concerning the terminology used in this debate.

If a boss called in a secretary and said, "write down what I say," then proceeds to talk while the secretary writes it down, what would we call that -- dictation or mechanical dictation?

Thanks.

I figure mechanical dictation would be in the old days when the boss spoke into a dictaphone, which made a little record, which the secretary would then listen and type out. Or nowadays with some other recording device.

 

[Stratton7]

I figure mechanical dictation would be in the old days when the boss spoke into a dictaphone, which made a little record, which the secretary would then listen and type out. Or nowadays with some other recording device.

So hypothetically speaking, from your description, if one were to believe in mechanical dictation, it’d be as if God spoke audibly and his words were recorded somewhere for the authors to then copy?

 

[rlvaughn]

Would you (any of you reading) think the following quote was from someone who believed in the dictation of Scripture?

Since the Holy Spirit was the actual source of what was written, He made certain that the writers used the correct words to express God’s truth.

 

[Stratton7]

Would you (any of you reading) think the following quote was from someone who believed in the dictation of Scripture?

It depends. Can dictation also mean it’s not just audibly and but also by way of writing only? If so, and I’m going with no bias on this quote, I would think yes the person believed in dictation. If I assumed it to be audible, that description would seem a bit vague to me to make a determination. “He made certain,” then I’d ask myself how?

 

[Stratton7]

As they were moved] φερομενοι. Forcibly moved, acted, carried out of themselves to say and do what God would have them

It is like the Holy Spirit took hold of the hands of the Writers of the Books of the Bible, and "made" them write what He wanted them to write, and they were simply passive instruments in this process.

This is not my theology, but what the Bible actually teaches. And, Greek professors have been proven to be wrong before.

You believe God physically forced the hands in which they couldn’t control if they wanted to, to write down the Words of God?
Just trying to follow your understanding here.

 

[rlvaughn]

Another quote, from someone who said dictation was wrong in contrast to his view (while spelling out a view with which no dictationist would disagree).

The more accurate view of inspiration is the verbal plenary theory. This theory says that every word of the Bible is inspired by God and that all portions of Scripture are equally inspired.

Also, I looked for a simple definition of mechanical dictation, and found this from someone named J. B. Myers.

Mechanical dictation is the view that the writers of Scripture were just secretaries writing down what the Holy Spirit said.

And two more quotes, the first from John R. Rice, and the second by B. B. Warfield.

Certainly we admit gladly that there is a “human side of the Bible—its style, language, composition, history and culture.” God used men to write the Bible. But the Bible never puts the emphasis on Scripture as coming from men, and neither should we. The Scriptures are fundamentally the Word of God, not the word of men, except in some incidental and controlled and limited sense. And that human side is wholly secondary, and is treated as incidental when the Bible speaks of itself, its origin and authority (Rice, Our God-Breathed Book, p. 141)

Accordingly, the words “with which” they spoke were not their own but the Lord’s: “And he said unto me,” records Ezekiel, “Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them” (Ezekiel 3:4). It is a process of nothing other than “dictation” which is thus described (2 Samuel 14:3, 19), though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation is accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the central fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in Exodus 4:10-17; 7:1-7. Here, in the most express words, Jehovah declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a prophet to be that he is “a mouth of God,” who speaks not his own but God’s words. (Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, pp. 86-87)

 

[Stratton7]

Another quote, from someone who said dictation was wrong in contrast to his view (while spelling out a view with which no dictationist would disagree). Also, I looked for a simple definition of mechanical dictation, and found this from someone named J. B. Myers. And two more quotes, the first from John R. Rice, and the second by B. B. Warfield.

Also, to add to yours rlvaughn, J. B. Myers added to the description you shared that:

that is, the writers were not allowed to use their own personalities and vocabularies in the writing process.” (Mechanical dictation)

It seems I had the right idea from his quote about it being robotic, but not so sure on the forced part, yet.

Another viewpoint here:
W. H. Griffeth Thomas in 1929 said on dictation:

The Instruments of the Bible - The Holy Spirit used men as the instruments of divine revelation.
There are a number of passages where the divine and the human are mentioned; where the distinction is drawn very clearly between the divine Author and the human instrument.
Thus:
- In Matthew 1:22, we have "Spoken of the Lord by the prophet, "
- In Acts 1:16, "The Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David,"
- In II Peter 1:21, "Holy men of old spake as they were moved [carried along] by the Holy Ghost."
So that as the instruments of the Spirit's work, the men were first the speakers, and then the writers of divine revelation. And yet "instrument" does not mean passivity, as "pens," but rather, the thought is expressed by the word in the case of penmen. Inspiration is a concursus of the divine and human.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You believe God physically forced the hands in which they couldn’t control if they wanted to, to write down the Words of God?
Just trying to follow your understanding here.

The Holy Spirit made sure that the Words written by the Writers of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, are from Him. His Words, His grammar, His fully control in every respect. If there are differences in style and grammar, which there are, like in the Four Gospels. Even this detail is what the Holy Spirit told them how to write, and gave them the choice of the words and grammar. The Holy Bible IS The Word of God, as if God Himself Wrote the very Words Himself, as He did with the Ten Commandments. I cannot see any valid argument that can show that the Dictation by the Holy Spirit, is flawed in any way. He must have complete control of what is written, and how it is written.

Take, for example Titus 2:13, where the Greek, "της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου", has been translated in versions like the KJV, "and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". This says that "the Great God", can be someone other than, "our Saviour Jesus Christ" (see also 2 Peter 1:1). However, the so called "rule" in Greek grammar as fomulated by Granville Sharp, only in the 18th century, shows that grammatically, this Greek refers to only One Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. This was rightly corrected in the 1881 Revised Version to, "appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ".

My point being, that even though it might have taken us 1800 years to fully understand what Paul actually wrote, yet, the Holy Spirit made sure that the Greek grammar is perfect. John 1:1, and other places is the same. The Holy Spirit has "determined" the very "jot and tittle", of the Writings in the Holy Bible. This ensures that what we have, IS The Word of Almighty God, and not a mixture of the Word of God, and the word of man.

 

[SavedByGrace]

No mechanical dictation

God inspired these men to write inerrantly. It is obvious that their education and ability is evident in word choice, structure, and eloquence.

says you!

 

[SavedByGrace]

2 Samuel 23:2, "The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue"

The words that David spoke, were the very Words that the Holy Spirit put in his mouth. David is the "instrument" of God's Words to humans. Likewise all the Writers of the Bible.

Luke 12:12, "for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

Jeremiah 1:9, "Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth"

Numbers 22:38, " And Balaam said to Balak, “Look, I have come to you! Now, have I any power at all to say anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak.”

Exodus 20:1, "And God spoke all these words, saying..."

 

[rlvaughn]

If a boss called in a secretary and said, "write down what I say," then proceeds to talk while the secretary writes it down, what would we call that -- dictation or mechanical dictation?

I personally think that’d be dictation whereas mechanical would be forced like a robot. However that is just my “current” take on it (not set in stone) so far and am curious myself as to how it’s viewed by others.

We would normally just call it dictation, without needing anything to modify it. That is roughly the same as what people mean when they speak of God dictating his word to the writers. So it seems to me that the word "mechanical" is solely or at least primarily added for pejorative effect.

Would you (any of you reading) think the following quote was from someone who believed in the dictation of Scripture?

Since the Holy Spirit was the actual source of what was written, He made certain that the writers used the correct words to express God’s truth.

It depends. Can dictation also mean it’s not just audibly and but also by way of writing only? If so, and I’m going with no bias on this quote, I would think yes the person believed in dictation. If I assumed it to be audible, that description would seem a bit vague to me to make a determination. “He made certain,” then I’d ask myself how?

This quote is from the conclusion of a short essay by Don Stewart arguing that the Bible was not given by dictation. That he wrote "made certain the writers used the correct words" may betray his view a bit, where a dictationist might have just wrote "gave the correct words" or something like that. The statement could even mean something like an editorial review rather than dictation. Nevertheless, it still struck me that there really is not a dime's worth of difference in the outcome. God is the source and he made sure we got his words. Perfectly. Without error.

 

[SavedByGrace]

We would normally just call it dictation, without needing anything to modify it. That is roughly the same as what people mean when they speak of God dictating his word to the writers. So it seems to me that the word "mechanical" is solely or at least primarily added for pejorative effect.

Exactly! well said.

 

[John of Japan]

So hypothetically speaking, from your description, if one were to believe in mechanical dictation, it’d be as if God spoke audibly and his words were recorded somewhere for the authors to then copy?

Well, I wrote that somewhat with tongue in cheek. There might or might not be an audible voice. It might just be a voice in the mind. At any rate, a truly "mechanical dictation" would take place in such a way that the human author had nothing to do with it. He would not choose the subject, the words, the arguments, etc. It would all be God and not at all man's. But that is not what the evangelical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration teaches. God prepared the human authors so that everything they wrote would be 100% what they wanted to write and 100% what God gave them to write. In other words, inspiration was a miraculous process.

 

[Stratton7]

Well, I wrote that somewhat with tongue in cheek. There might or might not be an audible voice. It might just be a voice in the mind. At any rate, a truly "mechanical dictation" would take place in such a way that the human author had nothing to do with it. He would not choose the subject, the words, the arguments, etc. It would all be God and not at all man's. But that is not what the evangelical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration teaches. God prepared the human authors so that everything they wrote would be 100% what they wanted to write and 100% what God gave them to write. In other words, inspiration was a miraculous process.

Would I be correct that this is in opposition to SBG’s position in post #4? Which would contradict post #35? Apologies SBG, am not trying to “call you out,” but simply trying to understand here.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Would I be correct that this is in opposition to SBG’s position in post #4? Which would contradict post #35? Apologies SBG, am not trying to “call you out,” but simply trying to understand here.

I don't mind, as it is what I have written, which I believe the be what the Bible actually says, regardless of any "Evangelical" doctrine on this subject. Just look at what John says in this reply in #36, "He would not choose the subject, the words, the arguments, etc. It would all be God and not at all man's". Give just ONE reason from the Bible that says that this is wrong? In #33 I gave some examples, where God did indeed actually put the words in the mouths of those He was Speaking through, so that when they spoke, they were the very Words of God! The OT is full of the expression, "Thus says the Lord", and this is just that, The Lord doing the Speaking through His Prophets, as though He were Speaking Himself. In Acts chapter 6, when Stephen begins his great speech, we read in verse 6, "And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake" (ASV. ESV, etc).. The Holy Spirit was Speaking His Words through Stephen. Every single Word in the Original Autographs, ARE The Word given by God the Holy Spirit, to each Writer of the 66 Books that we have. 2 Timothy 3:16, and 2 Peter 1:21, both use the passive voice in the Greek, which means that the Holy Spirit IS the actual Author of the entire Holy Bible, not simply guiding the Writers, but actually giving them the very Words that they were to write. This is the ONLY way that the Holy Bible IS The Word of God, and NOT that of God and man. I can see no Biblical objection to this. I do know of the arguments in theology, but theology is man-made and prone to error. Balaam's response is what I believe to be true for the entire Holy Bible;

Numbers 22:38, " And Balaam said to Balak, “Look, I have come to you! Now, have I any power at all to say anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak.”

They were the very Words of God that he had to speak. This is known as "dictation". God puts the very Words that He wants us to have from Him, and the Writers faithfully write them down, and this IS the Infallible, Inerrant Word of God, The Holy Bible. This is what the Bible says, nothing to do with "theology"

 

[John of Japan]

Would I be correct that this is in opposition to SBG’s position in post #4? Which would contradict post #35? Apologies SBG, am not trying to “call you out,” but simply trying to understand here.

Well, I wasn't trying to contradict SBG there, but simply explaining what a "mechanical" form of dictation would be. I think SBG and I pretty much agree theologically about verbal inspiration.

The whole thing with SBG started with me, unfortunately, making a point of basic grammar (verb or adjective?) about the Greek for "God-breathed in 2 Tim. 3:16. I wasn't differing with him on exegesis, only on grammar but I'm not sure he gets that. I should have simply left him alone.

To be more clear, I do not object to the term "dictation" being used for the process of verbal inspiration. After all, my own grandfather, John R. Rice, believed in using the term. He followed 19th century Swiss theologian Louis Gaussen in that.

I do object to using the term "mechanical" in reference to verbal inspiration. God does not do things "mechanically." Every single word of the original manuscripts was given exactly by the Holy Spirit, making it 100% the Word of God. At the same time, 100% of the Word of God was given through human instruments, prepared by God.

The term "mechanical" is used by liberals to mock evangelicals. Harry Emerson Fosdick mocked the Biblical doctrine as "mechanically inerrant" (John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, 262). Even Neo-Orthodox theologians use the same term to mock us, with Emil Brunner saying that the churches "are still suffering from the incubus of the old mechanical theory of inspiration" (Ibid., 263). Karl Barth spoke of "The historic conception of the Bible with its cult of heroes and the mechanical doctrine of verbal inspiration..." (Ibid., 265). So the accusation that verbal inspiration is "mechanical dictation" is an invention of liberals, mocking us Bible believers. However, the term "dictation" in reference to verbal inspiration is acceptable.

 

[rlvaughn]

A quote from Scottish Baptist theologian Robert Haldane:

It forms no objection to their inspiration, that the words of Scripture are occasionally changed in parallel passages or quotations, by Him who dictated them. The Holy Spirit is not confined to any one mode of expression, and in such places his mind is conveyed in words, which, though varied by him, are yet perfectly adapted to communicate His will…

Nor does the difference of style which we find among these writers at all conclude against their having the words they were to write imparted to them. The style that God was pleased to employ was used, and to the instruments he chose that style was natural, and flowed like the words with their full consent, and according to the particular tone of their minds, while they yielded to the impression as voluntary and intelligent agents. The Holy Spirit could dictate to them his own words in such a way, that they would also be their words, uttered with the understanding. He could speak the same thought by the mouth of a thousand persons, each in his own style. Is it, then, because we cannot comprehend the mode of such an operation, that we should dare to deny the obvious import of Scripture declarations? Because one peculiar cast of style distinguishes every man’s writings, is it thought impossible that the Spirit of God can employ a variety of styles, or is it supposed that he must be confined to one particular style? The simple statement of such an idea contains its refutation. It is evident, too, that variety of style militates no more against the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, than against the idea of the writers being superintended, elevated, or controlled; for if the Holy Spirit sanctioned variety, it was equally consistent to dictate variety. And it might be shown that such variety is of essential importance in the Gospel narratives, in bringing out very interesting views, that could not be so well exhibited in a single narrative.

Of the fact, however, that the variety of style which is found among the writers of the Scriptures, does not in the smallest degree militate against that verbal inspiration by which they affirm that they are written, we have conclusive proof. For while it is evident to all, that there is a certain characteristic distinction of style, that pervades the whole of the Scriptures, and sufficiently attests that they are the work of the same author, it is equally certain that each one of the writers is distinguished from the rest by a style peculiar to himself. Now the difference of style is as great among the prophets, when predicting future events, which they did not understand, where, as is admitted by all, the words they employed must necessarily have been communicated to them, as it is found to be among them when relating events with which they were previously acquainted. Here, then, we have positive proof on this subject, which it is impossible to set aside.

The Evidence and Authority of Divine Revelation: being a View of the Testimony of the Law and the Prophets to the Messiah, with the Subsequent Testimonies (Vol. I, 3rd edition, London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1839, pp. 213-216)​