Where is God's breath applied?

[Deacon]

So what you’re saying is:

All originally inspired writings are inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:14-17

Rather than define "Inspiration" we need to define what are "Scriptures"!

Rob

 

[DHK]

So what you’re saying is:

All originally inspired writings are inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:14-17

Rather than define "Inspiration" we need to define what are "Scriptures"!

Rob

The Scriptures is that body of books: 39 OT books originally written in the Hebrew, and 27 books originally written in the Greek which God inspired by about 40 different authors over a time period of about 1500 years, all with a unifying theme of redemption through Christ.

 

[Deacon]

The Scriptures is that body of books: 39 OT books originally written in the Hebrew, and 27 books originally written in the Greek which God inspired by about 40 different authors over a time period of about 1500 years, all with a unifying theme of redemption through Christ.

Hey, Then I've got the Scriptures on my shelf.

When I describe the Scriptures we read today as “inspired” or “God-breathed”, I’m speaking of the relationship that God has with the words I read.
Of secondary concern (to me) is the human author that God used to write or transmit the words, certainly the author was inspired.
I’m not saying the translators or transcribers were inspired.

I’m saying that as the words before us faithfully transmit God’s word, they are inspired, breathed of God.

I have great faith/trust/confidence that the words before me in the Scriptures I read are inspired by God.
THEREFORE I can say they are… “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Otherwise how could one preach/teach confidently from them?

It is not to say there are differences in translations, errors if you will, that have crept into the texts.
These of course are a product of mans imperfect nature.

Rob

 

[DHK]

Hey, Then I've got the Scriptures on my shelf.

When I describe the Scriptures we read today as “inspired” or “God-breathed”, I’m speaking of the relationship that God has with the words I read.
Of secondary concern (to me) is the human author that God used to write or transmit the words, certainly the author was inspired.
I’m not saying the translators or transcribers were inspired.

I’m saying that as the words before us faithfully transmit God’s word, they are inspired, breathed of God.

I have great faith/trust/confidence that the words before me in the Scriptures I read are inspired by God.
THEREFORE I can say they are… “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Otherwise how could one preach/teach confidently from them?

It is not to say there are differences in translations, errors if you will, that have crept into the texts.
These of course are a product of mans imperfect nature.

Rob

I like to be as accurate as possible in terminology. The only Scriptures that were "God-breathed" were the originals. However, having said that:

[FONT=&quot]There are now in existence about 5,000 known manuscripts of the Bible, or parts of the Bible, made between the 2nd and 15th centuries. This if far more than the manuscripts of any other ancient writing. There is not a complete known copy of Homer earlier than A.D. 1300; nor Herodotus earlier than A.D. 1000.

[/FONT]
Our Bible today is as close to the originals as could possibly be so that no doctrine is affected.



Inspiration is infallibility. Infallibility is absolute perfection right down to the crossing of the t and the dotting of the i, as Jesus said: "not one jot or tittle."
But we know that even in a translation such as the KJV, in its various editions there have been changes, however small they have been. Therefore infallibility is taken away. Only God is perfect, and the only perfect transcript was the original.

God promised to preserve these transcripts (MSS) faithfully for us, so closely to the originals that essentially there would be no real difference anyway. Yes, you have the Word of God, the Scriptures in your hand, and can preach it with power.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Deacon]

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that Hebrew and Greek texts appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).

Carl Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, Originally Published: Waco, Tex. : Word Books, c1976-c1983. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1999), 4:218-219.

You are in good company DHK.
In disagreeing with the prevailing theological viewpoints of many experts, I don’t see that Paul made that distinction in 2 Timothy.
The problem of accuracy became acute with the advancement of the modern scientific mindset intersecting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Paul in his simple way says that "All Scripture is inspired..."

Rob

 

[DHK]

You are in good company DHK.
In disagreeing with the prevailing theological viewpoints of many experts, I don’t see that Paul made that distinction in 2 Timothy.
The problem of accuracy became acute with the advancement of the modern scientific mindset intersecting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Paul in his simple way says that "All Scripture is inspired..."

Rob

Paul was just speaking the common language of the day, just as we would. He was not being technical.

 

[Deacon]

You are right, Paul wasn't being technical,
Why then should we add to his meaning by being technical ourselves?

He didn't have the original writings, yet he called what they had "inspired".

Rob

 

[DHK]

You are right, Paul wasn't being technical,
Why then should we add to his meaning by being technical ourselves?

He didn't have the original writings, yet he called what they had "inspired".

Rob

I don't know how "original" the OT canon of Scripture was at the time of Paul. I do know that he spoke right out of the Hebrew Scriptures and not a translation, and that his epistles (like the ones he wrote Timothy) were the original inspired autographs. 13 of the books of the NT were authored by Paul. By the time of his death, it is possible that he may have come in contact with almost all the books of the NT except the writings of John, Jude, and a couple of others. The Hebrew scribes were very exacting in their copying.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Preservation is different than inspiration. Until a good understanding of both terms is reached there is not much profit in trying to answer your question. Only the originals are inspired. ...

DHK, I have a genuine question for you: Are you saying that your Bible has the 'preserved' words of God but NOT the 'inspired' words of God? Stated a little differently: Are you saying that the words were preserved but the inspiration was not preserved? I'm just trying to understand you. Thanks.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Not always. God inspired the original documents that our canon of Scripture is made up of. I am sure that he spoke to Moses at other times that are not written. Those words are not inspired as they do not relate to the Scriptures. ...

How do you know (chapter & verse?) that God's unrecorded words were not inspired? Is God actually capable of speaking 'uninspired' words? I don't think so. (and in a later post you said that "Inspiration is infallibility.")

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Not just any person; it had to be one of the authors of the OT and NT. Otherwise we would have every Tom, Dick and Harry claiming inspiration; and that is exactly what has happened in the Charismatic movement. ...

Inspiration is not resistricted to just the OT & NT "authors". When any true prophet or apostle spoke God's words (whether they later wrote a portion of the canonical Scriptures or not), those words were motivated (inspired) by the Holy Spirit.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... But the Scriptures, as we use the word "Scriptures" then referred to the OT canon of Scriptures. Even then it referred to copies of the originals, as it does today. It did not refer to the original autographs, and if you are determined to say it does then you are reading into God's Word something that isn't there. ...

Why cannot the word "Scriptures" refer to the autographs in 2 Timothy? You previously argued that the same word in 2 Peter DID indicate the autographs! Perhaps Paul in 2 Peter was just speaking the common language of the day (not technical), too.

If I make any assertion about the contents of The Constitution of the United States my argument does not depend upon the replica I have on my wall (which may which may be a convenient resource, yet possibly defective); because I am actually appealing to the authority of the original. I think it is safe to say that Paul would not certify obvious scribal errors as the authentic words of God even if he might casually refer to the entire work as 'scripture'. When I quote the KJV, NIV, or other translation I am not depending on the authority of those renderings; I am appealing to the genuine words of God that are represented to us by those translations.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I have great faith/trust/confidence that the words before me in the Scriptures I read are inspired by God. ...

If the words of Scripture were not inspired (just suppose), wouldn't the Scriptures still be "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"? Would the Proverbs suddenly become unreliable statements, for example?

 

[DHK]

DHK, I have a genuine question for you: Are you saying that your Bible has the 'preserved' words of God but NOT the 'inspired' words of God? Stated a little differently: Are you saying that the words were preserved but the inspiration was not preserved? I'm just trying to understand you. Thanks.

In a nutshell, yes.
God has promised to preserve his Word.
Only the original autographs are inspired.
Preservation and inspiration are different.

 

[DHK]

How do you know (chapter & verse?) that God's unrecorded words were not inspired? Is God actually capable of speaking 'uninspired' words? I don't think so. (and in a later post you said that "Inspiration is infallibility.")

The best way for me to answer that is to take down a pile of theological books and look up the word "inspiration" and find out what it means. I already quoted you Warfield's definition which is quite a standard theological definition. I can give you a few others as well. Inspiration is used in the context of the Scriptures. To follow other rabbit trails is moot. It is like asking: Are God's Words spoken in heaven inspired? We are speaking about the words as they relate to the Bible that we hold in our hand. Let us not philosophize about other topics, but keep to the one at hand. Inspiration has directly to do with the way God used his prophets, his apostles to write down His words for all mankind. How did God communicate His Word to mankind? He gave us a Bible. The topic here is in the process of how that Bible was transmitted to us.

 

[DHK]

Inspiration is not resistricted to just the OT & NT "authors". When any true prophet or apostle spoke God's words (whether they later wrote a portion of the canonical Scriptures or not), those words were motivated (inspired) by the Holy Spirit.

Then who is to decide who is a true prophet and who isn't. That is the problem that Paul addressed in 1Cor.12-14, when speaking of spiritual gifts. There were false prophets among them. Some of them could speak in ecstatic tongues; some could speak in tongues from demons because they were influenced by their pagan past. Not all had the true gift of tongues. Only a few did.
There are many today that say that Joseph Smith is a true apostle of God.
Do you agree?

Inspiration is restricted only to the authors of our Bible.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[DHK]

Why cannot the word "Scriptures" refer to the autographs in 2 Timothy? You previously argued that the same word in 2 Peter DID indicate the autographs! Perhaps Paul in 2 Peter was just speaking the common language of the day (not technical), too.

It can, and perhaps that is a better way to look at it.

If I make any assertion about the contents of The Constitution of the United States my argument does not depend upon the replica I have on my wall (which may which may be a convenient resource, yet possibly defective); because I am actually appealing to the authority of the original. I think it is safe to say that Paul would not certify obvious scribal errors as the authentic words of God even if he might casually refer to the entire work as 'scripture'. When I quote the KJV, NIV, or other translation I am not depending on the authority of those renderings; I am appealing to the genuine words of God that are represented to us by those translations.

That is a good example.

 

[franklinmonroe]

In a nutshell, yes.
God has promised to preserve his Word.
Only the original autographs are inspired.
Preservation and inspiration are different.

Thanks for the direct answer, DHK. I agree that preservation and inspiration are different processes.

I think we also agree that God motivated and directed (although not mechanically) the prophets & apostles to select the very words God wanted written ('verbal' inspiration). We say these are 'inspired' words which were excusively put forth in the ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

Now, when precisely the same words are preserved in the same original language by being copied letter by letter from the autograph's surface onto another material (stone, parchment, etc.) why wouldn't those preserved words still be inspired words? Could simply transferring the divinely appointed words from being displayed in the original document to also being displayed in another document somehow supernaturally strip them of their inspiration? I don't think you actually believe this, but it almost seems for you that the inspiration is embedded in the original materials and not the communicative words themselves.

If the original language words are inspired then as long as those words are preserved it would seem logical that their inspired nature is preserved with them. (I am not yet dealing with the translating of any words)

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Inspiration is restricted only to the authors of our Bible.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You seem to emphasize the inspiration of the men ("authors" or writers) and not much for the inspiration on the actual words.

Yet, it is interesting that 2 Peter 1:21 explicitly states that God's men were motivated when they "spake". So, didn't God inspire the words of Jeremiah's prophecy as they came out of his mouth NOT when Baruch's pen scratched the surface of the scroll? Wasn't it Jeremiah that was the Lord's annointed prophet with authority? Aren't the words credited to Jeremiah? Would God have needed to influence Barach's ability to hear, mentally process, and manually write accurately? Was Baruch inspired also?

Did the Holy Spirit inspire Peter's sermons (in Acts) at the time he delivered them or not until Luke wrote them down? Assuming that Luke captured the words accurately, were the same words 'uninspired' when originally delivered by Peter? Weren't they God's words all along (and He knew they would end up being recorded). Or, was the same sermon inspired twice?

What about Caiaphas' prophecy (John 11:50-51)? What about when Balaam's ass spoke (Numbers 22:28)? You see, if the words are inspired when spoken then they continue to be inspired when written down accurately; this is essentially the teaching of 2 Peter 1:20-21. It does not work as neatly the other way around.

 

[DHK]

You seem to emphasize the inspiration of the men ("authors" or writers) and not much for the inspiration on the actual words.

You are again correct. I have to be more careful the way I word things. It is always the writings that are inspired, not the authors. God used the authors. But it is the writings that are inspired. For example, Paul wrote four epistles to the Corinthians but only two of them were inspired of God. I believe we are on the same page. I am just a little careless in my wording at times.