Where is God's breath applied?

[DHK]

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)

Go back to your illustration of the Constitution. It is a good one. And it is true of any important document or ancient literary work such as Homer, Shakespeare, etc. If there is any doubt of what the Constitution says you appeal to the original. Even if it is to the grammar, a comma or colon out of place, the original stands as the standard. Only the original can be authoritative. That is the standard; no other copy will do. All copies must be checked by the original, especially if there is any question.

Now our original MSS were inspired which literally means "God-breathed." If it is God-breathed, then it is perfect in every aspect for God makes no mistakes. Not even one comma would be out of place. As Jesus referred to: "not one jot or tittle would pass away." The meaning--not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter would be lost. It is perfect, inspired--God-breathed. God makes no mistakes. Man makes mistakes; he is fallible. God is infallible and makes no mistakes. That is why the copies are preserved but not inspired. They have mistakes because man is fallible. The mistakes are rather insignificant as far as we are concerned--spelling, punctuation, etc. In over 5,000 MSS God's Word has been preserved. No doctrine has been affected. We don't have anything to be concerned about, even if we say only the originals are inspired.
The originals are our standard, our authority, just as the original Constitution is of the U.S. The difference: In the Constitution there actually may be some kind of mistake because it was written by man.
But in God's original MSS, there can be no mistake because it was breathed by God himself who is perfect and all that he does is perfect.

 

[Deacon]

I'm still having problems with this...

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

Correction:

So inspiration was something that happened once and done?
To correct Paul’s letter we need to understand 2 Timothy 3:16 thus...

“All originally inspired writings were inspired by God and are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness... “

Jesus and the NT authors spoke about the Scriptures they used as authoritative. [c.f. John 5:39; Romans 15:4-5]
A God's word, they carried the same authority as the original writings.
God said..., Has it not been written..., God's word...,

Where is God's breath applied?
To the very words you read in the Scriptures before you.

Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

... For example, Paul wrote four epistles to the Corinthians but only two of them were inspired of God. ...

Pardon me for getting off topic (the inspiration of Scripture) but I want later readers to know that there is an alternative opinion. I believe that all four of Paul's epistles to the Corinthians were inspired; Paul wrote authoritatively to that church and they received the words of God. However, two of those letters were not intended nor necessary for us.

 

[WITBOTL]

one of the problems with saying only the autographs were inspired is that they were no more inspired than the copies!

What I mean is that God inspired the words in the men who wrote them and those men wrote those words down. The words are inspired as long as those words were faithfully copied.. ie. from the authors to the scribes to the autograph to the original copies etc. etc.

You cannot say the autographs were insipred any more than a later (faithful) copy because there's nothing in the matter of the manuscripts or the ink that makes them inspired... its the words and if they're copied onto papyrus, vellum or paper, printed or written in the sand they are the inspired words of God.

 

[WITBOTL]

further to my point did it not take the providential preservation of the Word to be transmitted from the mind of the author to the paper if by his own pen or through the pen of scribe? Surely the scribe was not also inspired... If not then does it not open the possibility that even the autographs had errors? Perhaps the scribe misheard or in a moment of inattention Paul or Luke or John wrote an unintended word or two...

 

[Harold Garvey]

"but,but,but..... then, then, then!"

:thumbsup:

If only the words spoken by God are inspired, then the word lost inspiration at some point in time of the transmission. Why? Because they were no longer the actual words of God/God breathed, but were the words of men as they were inspired by God.

I agree with you whole-heartedly WITBOTL!

What has always gotten me is how men of "degree" seem to try their doggest to explain something away and it's right in front of them when they walk away as if they "succeeded"

 

[DHK]

Pardon me for getting off topic (the inspiration of Scripture) but I want later readers to know that there is an alternative opinion. I believe that all four of Paul's epistles to the Corinthians were inspired; Paul wrote authoritatively to that church and they received the words of God. However, two of those letters were not intended nor necessary for us.

To take that view would be to say that everything that the Apostles said was inspired. That cannot be true. The apostles were fallible men just as you and I are. They were not perfect. They made mistakes, even as Paul rebuked Peter "for his dissimulation," or hypocrisy. The reference to the event in Galatians is inspired as recorded by Paul. But what Peter actually said is during that wrong-doing is not.
It was possible that Paul, as a human could have given bad advice once in a while. After all he was only a man. But that which is inspired is accurately recorded for our learning. It is God-breathed. Nothing else is. Inspiration refers only to the 66 books that we hold in our hands today. They are the books that God intended for us to have; they are the books that have been providentially preserved by God down throughout the ages for us. They, for us, have become the Scriptures; what Jude calls: "the faith." Let us therefore contend for that faith.

 

[DHK]

one of the problems with saying only the autographs were inspired is that they were no more inspired than the copies!

What I mean is that God inspired the words in the men who wrote them and those men wrote those words down. The words are inspired as long as those words were faithfully copied.. ie. from the authors to the scribes to the autograph to the original copies etc. etc.

You cannot say the autographs were insipred any more than a later (faithful) copy because there's nothing in the matter of the manuscripts or the ink that makes them inspired... its the words and if they're copied onto papyrus, vellum or paper, printed or written in the sand they are the inspired words of God.

It is the words of Peter, Paul; Samuel, Moses, etc. It is the words of holy men of God as referred to in 2Pet.1:20-22. It is not the words of copyists. God inspired the words of Peter and John, for example, and their words were written down without error because God alone is perfect and without error.

Copyists and translators are men who are fallible and make mistakes however small they are. They are not perfect; they are not God, and therefore their copies are not God-breathed. They are not the actual words of God, and never will be. Only the original words of God are God-breathed or inspired. The copies that we have today are preserved, the preserved Word of God. It is authoritative, but only the original MSS are inspired.

 

[WITBOTL]

Hi DHK,
Hi DHK

It is the words of Peter, Paul; Samuel, Moses, etc. It is the words of holy men of God as referred to in 2Pet.1:20-22. It is not the words of copyists. God inspired the words of Peter and John, for example, and their words were written down without error because God alone is perfect and without error.

I agree! It is the words that are inspired and those words were inspired in the minds of the men who wrote them not in the pieces of parchment upon which they were written. It is the WORDS that are inspired though, not the manuscripts themselves. Do you see the distinction I am making?

Copyists and translators are men who are fallible and make mistakes however small they are. They are not perfect; they are not God, and therefore their copies are not God-breathed. They are not the actual words of God, and never will be. Only the original words of God are God-breathed or inspired. The copies that we have today are preserved, the preserved Word of God. It is authoritative, but only the original MSS are inspired.

You are right, copyists and translators are fallible men and certainly are prone to making mistakes. This is true of the scribes who wrote the original manuscripts and also true of the original authors is it not? As men were they not also fallible and capable of errors?

Now let me ask you this. If only the original words were inspired and I wrote down verbatim a copy of the original words and then we both checked those words and we both agreed that the copy was identical to the original is not the copy then also inspired because the copy as far as the words are concerned is identical to the original?

The point I am making is also the point that I think you made: that which is inspired is the words. The manuscripts themselves are not inspired, but the words they contain are. Inspiration HAPPENED once if you will, so there is not a second inspiration when the scribe wrote what was dictated, or the copiest copied what was written BUT if the copies are faithful then the words in the copy ARE INSPIRED! It doesn't require a second or third etc. inspiration.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK,
Hi DHK

I agree! It is the words that are inspired and those words were inspired in the minds of the men who wrote them not in the pieces of parchment upon which they were written. It is the WORDS that are inspired though, not the manuscripts themselves. Do you see the distinction I am making?

Words to successive generations have no value except they be written down.

You are right, copyists and translators are fallible men and certainly are prone to making mistakes. This is true of the scribes who wrote the original manuscripts and also true of the original authors is it not? As men were they not also fallible and capable of errors?

What do you mean by "scribes who wrote the original manuscripts." We attribute the writings of the original MSS to the prophets and apostles themselves. There are no mistakes in the written word in the originals. It is they that are God-breathed.

Now let me ask you this. If only the original words were inspired and I wrote down verbatim a copy of the original words and then we both checked those words and we both agreed that the copy was identical to the original is not the copy then also inspired because the copy as far as the words are concerned is identical to the original?

Not necessarily. I write lots of letters. Sometimes both my wife and I (and my spell checker) go over a letter twice. And guess what? After it is published we find that a mistake was missed. We are fallible. We make mistakes. And the copyists did too. You can't work on a premise of suppositions. You have to deal with reality. The reality is that the copyists did make mistakes, and everyone here knows that. We can point you to them.

The point I am making is also the point that I think you made: that which is inspired is the words. The manuscripts themselves are not inspired, but the words they contain are. Inspiration HAPPENED once if you will, so there is not a second inspiration when the scribe wrote what was dictated, or the copiest copied what was written BUT if the copies are faithful then the words in the copy ARE INSPIRED! It doesn't require a second or third etc. inspiration.

Paul wrote this for a reason:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

He then wrote:
2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The context was referring to Timothy studying the OT Scriptures. He could not study that which had not been written down. Even if he had access to the original MSS, they would have had to be written down in order for him to study them. They are only profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, if they are written down.
The original MSS were inspired of God, God-breathed, on the very MSS that the apostles and prophets either wrote or had them write. Jeremiah used Baruch to write his words. But everything that Baruch wrote was perfect, write to the dotting of the i and the crossing of the t, because it was of God.

 

[WITBOTL]

Words to successive generations have no value except they be written down.

I agree

What do you mean by "scribes who wrote the original manuscripts." We attribute the writings of the original MSS to the prophets and apostles themselves. There are no mistakes in the written word in the originals. It is they that are God-breathed.

Romans 16:22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle...
It seems as if Tertius copied onto paper what Paul "wrote" with his voice (so to speak) which was inspired by God.. or do you say that Tertius was inspired?

Not necessarily. I write lots of letters. Sometimes both my wife and I (and my spell checker) go over a letter twice. And guess what? After it is published we find that a mistake was missed. We are fallible. We make mistakes. And the copyists did too. You can't work on a premise of suppositions. You have to deal with reality. The reality is that the copyists did make mistakes, and everyone here knows that. We can point you to them.

I agree that we are prone to errors and can even miss errors, but you seem to be suggesting that not only are we susceptible to errors but we cannot avoid making them without exception. But that simply is not the case. I can show you many cases both ancient and certainly modern where copies of manuscripts were faithfully reproduced. But you are missing my point which is that IF we could demonstrate a faithful copying and if we could agree that the copy faithfully reproduced the original THEN the two would be equally inspired because they contain identical words. Do you see what I am saying. I am not arguing that man doesn't make mistakes in copying I am arguing that if the copy is a faithful reproduction then the reproduction is no different in terms of being the inspired words of God than the original. There is nothing inherent in the ink or the parchment which makes the original inspired. IT IS THE WORDS that are inspired. In the original? Yes. In a faithful copy yes. We can argue whether or not there is or ever was a faithful copy and that's a useful debate but I am trying to establish that IF a copy is faithful it is EQUAL in inspiration. I am sorry if I am not clear, I don't know how to say it so that it is clear...

The original MSS were inspired of God, God-breathed, on the very MSS that the apostles and prophets either wrote or had them write. Jeremiah used Baruch to write his words. But everything that Baruch wrote was perfect, write to the dotting of the i and the crossing of the t, because it was of God.

but how do you know that Baruch did not error (being fallible)? Do you say that it was inspiration that made Baruch's job perfect? So then was Baruch also inspired?

The WORDS were inspired in the minds of men. So, in the Pauline epistles they are written in Paul's style and John write's in his own style. God inspired the words in the men and the men wrote them down. He didn't inspire the words mystically on the parchment so as far as inspiration is concerned how does it speak to the perfection of the originals. (I am not arguing the originals were not perfect, I am trying to say that it wasn't inspiration that made them perfect, it was preservation)

If we are going to accept that errors exist in the Word of God (Because we can demonstrate copies with inconsistencies) and that those errors happen because of the fallibility of man and as soon as man is involved in the process errors WILL exist then we have to consider the possibility that this same situation exists with respect to the production of the originals because there was a process when the originals were written in getting them from the mind of God to the paper and MAN was involved in that process as well (sometimes more than one man if a scribe was used) So then we must argue that God did something in the author ie Paul as well as the copyist ie. Tertius and therefore inspiration encompasses the whole processes from God to the mind of man to the voice of that man to the hand of the scribe without error. I am trying to argue that what made the original perfect in that process was not inspiration it was preservation and God had a hand in that and we can be confident that the originals were perfect.

To summarize :

we can be confident that the words are God's words (as opposed to man's words) because they were inspired by God. We can be confident that the words of God convey God's ideas because they are God's word's and not man's words and this is because of inspiration.

We can be confident that the original and the faithful copies are also God's Word's because they are a faithful reproduction of the original mss which is a faithful reproduction of the word's that were inspired by God. This confidence is because of preservation not inspiration.

Unless of course you teach that God inspired the word's mystically apart from the men who wrote them down and it wasn't the men who had those word's inspired in them but the original mss. themselves that were inspired. If so, how to you support that position?

 

[franklinmonroe]

WITBOTL, welcome to the forum. Since you are a relatively new poster I would like to suggest to you that you read previous posts in a topic to prevent covering the same material. For example --

... Surely the scribe was not also inspired ...

This was essentially asked of DHK on Page 4 (Post #39).

... the copy was identical to the original is not the copy then also inspired because the copy as far as the words are concerned is identical to the original?

This was similarly asked of DHK in Post #38; you can also read his response (Post #41).

 

[franklinmonroe]

one of the problems with saying only the autographs were inspired is that they were no more inspired than the copies! ...

I think a 'copy' (taken as a whole) should be considered LESS inspired than than the autograph. Why? Because all biblical handwritten documents of at least moderate length display copyist errors; these differences cannot be originally 'inspired'. At best, an apograph could only be partially inspired (only the parts that are exactly correct).

However, any words that are accurately reproduced in proper context might by some folks be still considered as being inspired. Therefore, the portions of a manuscript copy that are precisely the same as an original could logically be considered inspired but the scribal errors would NOT be inspired, resulting in an overall less-than-completely inspired document. Copies (say, in a Court of Law) never exceed the authority of an original and copies are rarely even given equal status as absent originals.

One true difference between original Scriptures and subsequent copies would be that the inspired autographs would have been absolutely inerrant.

 

[franklinmonroe]

To take that view would be to say that everything that the Apostles said was inspired. That cannot be true. The apostles were fallible men just as you and I are. They were not perfect. ...

To be perfectly clear, I specifically stated that I thought everything written by Paul to the Corinthians was inspired; not everything that he generally "said". Certainly, I do not think that when Paul conversed casually he was always being inspired; likewise, he probably wrote casually at times while he was not under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. I agree they were sinners and imperfect.

But since Paul referrences these other epistles as containing teachings to the Corinthian congregation I think they were not just mere casual correspondence. How would the Corinthians know when Paul was writing an inspired message for which they would be held accountable by God and when he was just giving them his own human advise? So, when he wrote in the capacity as an Apostle with a message from the Lord I think the words were inspired even if those writings were not intended to be preserved for our biblical canon. Maybe I can't prove it. However, I find no reason to limit God's breath to just writings.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Inspiration HAPPENED once ...

I agree, and I think that this is the key issue. Inspiration is the 'birth' (if you will) of the words of God. They cannot be 'born' again (bur praise the Lord WE can!). I see this as a parallel situation to when original content is created today. The author of the art can copyright their genuinely original work. It belongs to the author. It may be duplicated or replicated by others (especially under 'fair use' guidlines) many times. Its copyright status may even expire but it will never be original again. But is that all that inspiration is?

Is the 'beginning' also the end (of inspiration)? Don't onetime events often have continuing, longlasting, lingerimg, and residual effects? I was physically born once but I did not cease to be physically 'me' (while I'm alive). I am not exactly the same as I was at birth but I exist mostly the same (especially on a DNA level).

 

[franklinmonroe]

Question for Deacon --

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?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Here is mostly what we know relating to 'inspiration' --

1. All spoken prophecies (teachings) by God's "holy men" were motivated by the Holy Spirit; "Thus saith the Lord" proceeds the words of God over 400 times in the OT. This is historically consistent because these primarily oral societies where writing had been less frequent and gave preference to the face-to-face spoken word (Paul implies this many times; see also II John 12 & III John 13).

2. Consequently then, recorded revelation ("prophecy of the scripture") is equally motivated by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 22:43, for example). At times, God specifically told men to "write" something down. God even wrote the Law with His own finger. It is important to read, remember, and "search the scriptures"; it is the written standard by which to compare preaching in order that believers not accept "another" Gospel from false teachers.

3. All genuine scripture originates with the breath of God.​

We know there was inspiration of Scripture. The question seems to be: how do you define "scripture"? Obviously, the autographs were Scripture. Since we do not have the autographs, what else might qualify as "scripture"? Are any translations this same "scripture"? Are manuscript copies properly "scripture"? Are critical texts "scripture"?

 

[DHK]

To be perfectly clear, I specifically stated that I thought everything written by Paul to the Corinthians was inspired; not everything that he generally "said". Certainly, I do not think that when Paul conversed casually he was always being inspired; likewise, he probably wrote casually at times while he was not under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. I agree they were sinners and imperfect.

Therefore, if Paul wrote a letter to his sister, mother, niece, nephew, etc., that letter, according to you, would be inspired--just because it is written by Paul??
I am a missionary. I write letters (or emails) of instruction to those on the field. Does one have more importance than the other? Maybe and maybe not. It is God that chooses what goes into the canon of Scripture and thus what is inspired. Only that which is in the canon of Scripture is Scripture or God-breathed. Scripture (the God-breathed canon), that God gave us, is the only guideline that we have and the only inspired writings that we have. Inspiration is applicable only to the Scriptures, and never beyond that.
Let's consider a classic definition again:

[FONT=&quot]DEFINITION: "Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)

Inspiration is applicable only to the 66 books of the Bible that we have today.
[/FONT]

But since Paul referrences these other epistles as containing teachings to the Corinthian congregation I think they were not just mere casual correspondence. How would the Corinthians know when Paul was writing an inspired message for which they would be held accountable by God and when he was just giving them his own human advise? So, when he wrote in the capacity as an Apostle with a message from the Lord I think the words were inspired even if those writings were not intended to be preserved for our biblical canon. Maybe I can't prove it. However, I find no reason to limit God's breath to just writings.

It was God who limited himself to just 66 books of the Bible. We cannot use our own reason here. God gave us the Bible. Books outside of the Bible, however profitable they might be, are not inspired. It is as simple as that. God chose not to include them in our canon of Scripture (God-breathed autographs).

Consider this Scripture and its implications:
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

As John 20:31 says, what was written in the Scriptures was written for a purpose. God had John write only certain "words" or about certain events because he had a purpose in mind. That purpose is clearly stated in verse 31.
The two other epistles of Paul to the Corinthians clearly did not fit in God's plan or purpose for successive generations. It was not in his sovereign grace to have them inspired to be included in his guidebook for all mankind.

John continues to say that if all the miracles that Jesus performed there would not be enough room in the world to contain the books that would be written about him. The question is: if all those first generation witnesses of Christ composes such a library of "original MSS," would they all be inspired? No. God only inspired that which is contained in our 66 books, even if those very words were the words of Christ that were left out of the 66 books. There were many sermons that Jesus preached that are not in our Bible, but they are not "inspired" (though they come right from the mouth of God), because God chose not to put them into our Bible.

Mark 1:38-39 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth. And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Therefore, if Paul wrote a letter to his sister, mother, niece, nephew, etc., that letter, according to you, would be inspired--just because it is written by Paul?? ...

No. I don't think you would have asked this question if you had read what I wrote carefully --

... Certainly, I do not think that when Paul conversed casually he was always being inspired; likewise, he probably wrote casually at times while he was not under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. ...

That would exclude casual letters to family, grocery lists, etc. I thought I was being pretty clear that only "when he wrote in the capacity as an Apostle with a message from the Lord" would his letters be of an inspired nature. I don't mind that you disagree with me, but maybe you could focus on your comprehension of my post first.

 

[DHK]

No. I don't think you would have asked this question if you had read what I wrote carefully --

That would exclude casual letters to family, grocery lists, etc. I thought I was being pretty clear that only "when he wrote in the capacity as an Apostle with a message from the Lord" would his letters be of an inspired nature. I don't mind that you disagree with me, but maybe you could focus on your comprehension of my post first.

I realized that after I had already posted. Yes, you were clear on that point.