You are using an interesting expression, "'inspiration' on him." What does this mean? Does this mean that the person is inspired by the Spirit or is the writing inspired by the Spirit? I've always taken it to be the writing is inspired, not the person having some sort of special gift that creates inspired texts.
And you seem to imply that only known editors (like Moses and Joshua) could be inspired, not editors lost to the records of history. And, if this is our standard, how do we know if Hebrews is inspired since we don't really know who wrote it?
What is your scripture reference to indicate that Luke was "covered" by Paul's Apostolic inspiration?
Does it also mean that God did not preserve His word since one of Paul's letters to the church in Corinth seems not to have survived? (The Mormons make much of this BTW. They use it as "evidence" that "plain and precious" parts of the Bible - that allegedly teach Mormon doctrine - are missing.)
Be careful here. Essentially you are saying that we don't have an inspired text anymore, just something that is close.
I think you are mixing a theory of inerrancy with a theory of inspiration.
I agree that we currently do not have an inerrant Bible. However we have a fully inspired, reliable and infallible Bible.
I worked though all of these issues years ago in a Christian Doctrines class in college. I wrote my term paper on the inspiration of scripture, naively expecting to be able to build a irrefutable doctrinal foundation of inspiration so that I could use it as a foundation for inerrancy, and then for a complete systematic theology based on the "certainty" of those position.
The more I worked through the scriptures and various theories from across the theological spectrum, I realized that the scripture doesn't really tell us how the scriptures were inspired (yes I know, "God-breathed", but it's not really that helpful when you are trying to make a dictation theory work with the variants between the two listings of the Ten Commandments in the Pentateuch or the variations in word usage between descriptions of the same events in the various gospels).
Ultimately, we just have to accept intellectually that the scriptures are indeed inspired, just as the Spirit confirms to our spirit, and that the church through the centuries has understood. Then we move forward in faithful discipleship to Jesus and not try to make claims beyond what the Bible teaches about itself.
believe that part of the "Apostolic" authority granted to them by Jesus was just as God had granted unto OT prophets... That bothe Apostles/propheys themselves were inspired in their writings that became part of the Biblical text...
NOT everything they uttered or wrote was inspired by god, BUT what was preserved for us in Canon was....
Would say that the Canon scriptures books were inspired directly in original versions, altering text amending it etc was not, but what was preserved for us is the "Gist" of the original texts, so would indeed be the Word of God to us for today!
In other words.... There are some small textual add ons, variants, mistranlations etc in any text that we have to translate from today, BUT on essential doctrine 100 % right on, as the minor points would be like in number amounts, a scribe inserting a verse etc, which DOES not affect the reliability, as "mistake free" is just reserved for originals!
PS Please refresh me on terms inspiration/inherrancy/revealtion, if you dont mind!
Last edited by a moderator: