The Value of Inspiration and The Bible's Self-Defining Contextual Pattern.

The Value of Inspiration by Mark Fenisen.

The Bible clearly teaches the original autographs were given by inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16). However, we do not possess any of these original autographs. We only possess copies and translations of other copies. Moreover, the copies and translations we possess do not harmonize word for word with each other. What is the value of inspired original autographs if none exist today?

This question has bothered laymen and scholars alike. This very question has given rise to the science of higher criticism which has led some into complete agnosticism in regard to any present-day inspired Word of God. Although the most liberal higher critic does not doubt that we possess between 98.33 to 99.8% of the original words, they point out that this small percentage of differences in copies are reflected by variations in some translations. Many ask, if some words are in doubt, then who determines which are correct or incorrect, and does not this uncertainty make the scholars the final authority instead of the scriptures?

Others react to higher criticism by assuming that only the KJV is the inspired word of God. They say every word in the KJV is the infallible Word of God, and there is no other Bible today for man. However, what about people in other countries that don’t speak English, and never have since the first century? What about those who lived before the King James Version was printed?

What about our Baptist forefathers between the second century and 1611? They were living in non-English speaking countries with non-English translations and copies of the Scriptures as their Bible? What about the various editions of the KJV? Which edition is the infallibly inspired word-for-word Bible since they are not all the same in wording? The original KJV edition contained the Old Testament apocrypha but present editions do not. If the KJV is considered an infallible translation then should we not be using the Old Testament Apocrypha found in the 1611 printing? However, all these books have been removed from later editions of the KJV. Our present edition does not even read like the first edition, as the language has been greatly updated and changed in the 33-plus editions since it was originally printed.

Is there another solution to this problem?

I believe there is!

I believe the value of inspiration was
to provide an infallible self-defining contextual pattern.

For example, take a look at an afghan where a clear and discernable pattern is repeated throughout. Through the years this afghan may suffer abuse where minor holes and gaps might occur. However, anyone studying the contextual pattern could easily fill in any gaps or holes because the pattern makes clear what should fill those gaps. The only thing required to fill the holes is a careful study of the overall and immediate pattern.

God anticipated the continuing change in the meaning of words, as well as, errors by copyists and translators, but remedied it by providing a self-defining pattern that cannot be broken (Jn. 10:35). The Greek term translated broken is used for the wrappings around a corpse that are bound together in cohesion. Minor tears or holes do not unravel the bindings.

Every word in Scripture is the word of God.

However, not a single word in Scripture
can be properly interpreted apart from the immediate
and overall context in which it has been placed.

Proper thoughts must be expressed by proper choice of words placed in a proper grammatical relationship with other words. Grammarians call this proper relationship between words syntax.

Hence, every word in the Scripture(s) is God’s Word as properly defined and interpreted by its immediate and overall context. Scripture can only be properly interpreted and understood by comparing scripture with scripture and allowing scripture to define and interpret itself (1 Cor.2:13).

Divine providence placed the Scriptures
in the hands of God’s people who carefully preserved them.

Divine providence did not prevent minor copyist and translator errors by the divinely chosen custodians of the scriptures (Rom. 3:1-2; 1 Tim. 3:15). Yet, such minor errors do not destroy the self-defining context of scripture. A copyist may write the wrong word or skip a word, but the self-defining contextual pattern redefines terms or provides what is needed to fill in the gap. Translators may choose inappropriate words but still, the self-defining contextual pattern gives the proper definition. Therefore, what is defined as an error is redefined by a self-defining contextual pattern.