Modern Scientific Textual Criticism - Bound or Independent
Forum category
In 1558 William Whitaker, a master apologist for the truth of sola Scriptrua, wrote his comprehensive apology against the Roman Catholic dogma of Bellarmine and Stapleton on the topic of Holy Scripture - Disputations on Holy Scripture. Under the First Controversy and the Sixth question Whitaker writes concerning the necessity of Scripture,
“For if in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be governed and retained in their duty by certain laws; much less should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a will-worship hateful to God.” [523:
So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC: , in what way is MSTC “bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule” seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of “divine things”?
I maintain that MSTC is not bound but rather is a “will-worship hateful to God.” For the nay-sayer, I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing. You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT’s on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned. So I conclude, where the Spirit of God is leading, the word of God accompanies that leading, thus pre-Enlightenment textual criticism is not of the same genus as MSTC, and should not be considered as such.
For those who seek to position MSTC with in the limits of the “prescribed and certain rule” [i.e. Holy Scripture: , know that if you cannot, then you are in danger of condoning, supporting, and advancing a “will-worship hateful to God.” Why is it will-worship? Because MSTC’s goal is professedly not that of God’s will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God’s words. [i.e. men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelation: Why is it hateful to God? A willful act not subject to the will of God is what brought us sin and the fall of man. Thus, MSTC is nothing more than an present day extension of that god-overthrowing will evidenced by our first parents.
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of the supporters of the MSTC, by challenging them to locate MSTC in the greater exegetical and historical tapestry of Bibliology and if they cannot, to abandon MSTC as a system suitable for the work of Christ’s Kingdom.
“For if in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be governed and retained in their duty by certain laws; much less should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a will-worship hateful to God.” [523:
So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC: , in what way is MSTC “bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule” seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of “divine things”?
I maintain that MSTC is not bound but rather is a “will-worship hateful to God.” For the nay-sayer, I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing. You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT’s on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned. So I conclude, where the Spirit of God is leading, the word of God accompanies that leading, thus pre-Enlightenment textual criticism is not of the same genus as MSTC, and should not be considered as such.
For those who seek to position MSTC with in the limits of the “prescribed and certain rule” [i.e. Holy Scripture: , know that if you cannot, then you are in danger of condoning, supporting, and advancing a “will-worship hateful to God.” Why is it will-worship? Because MSTC’s goal is professedly not that of God’s will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God’s words. [i.e. men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelation: Why is it hateful to God? A willful act not subject to the will of God is what brought us sin and the fall of man. Thus, MSTC is nothing more than an present day extension of that god-overthrowing will evidenced by our first parents.
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of the supporters of the MSTC, by challenging them to locate MSTC in the greater exegetical and historical tapestry of Bibliology and if they cannot, to abandon MSTC as a system suitable for the work of Christ’s Kingdom.
- 633 views
but he and others are useful in demonstrating that the Warfield / Westcott / Hort / A.A. Hodge view of a pure text (and inspiration) as “limited only to the original manuscripts” was a new invention, and thus suspect. Even Warfield (at first) admitted he was redefining inspiration, though he stopped admitting it later.
The entire Scriptural emphasis is on the certainty, not uncertainty, of that which people held in their hand. Uncertainty about the true text is simply not found anywhere in Scripture. I can’t find one verse that sounds at all like what modern theologians sound like when they talk “original autographs” and inspiration. Shouldn’t that give us pause?
Our theological statements about Scripture don’t sound like Scripture’s statements about Scripture. That means we’ve gone wrong somewhere, no matter how we try to slice and dice it, no matter what our logic tells us. Jesus didn’t say, “The Scripture cannot be broken, and by the way, that only applies to the original autographs.” The whole assumption was that they had those unbreakable Scriptures in their hands to use as their authority.
II Timothy 3:16 was talking about what Timothy held in his hand, which was profitable to equip, and which he was supposed to preach (4:2). It wasn’t an abstract theoretical statement about something that happened hundreds of years ago and might or might not guarantee the value of the Greek translation he used to preach in Ephesus. 4:2 just continues 3:16-17 — some of the words are even the same. Warfield shifted the paradigm, and we need to shift it back and read 3:16 in context again.
Peter, writing to Greek speakers and readers, said they had a “sure word of prophecy” — and they had a translation. Today, by contrast, we hear people saying everywhere that even the original language text we have isn’t “sure”. Something has gone far amiss. We posit uncertainty, whiile the Scriptures preach certainty. Our entire approach needs blown up.
As some already know, I could go on at length, but I’ll stop. :) You gentlemen have kept this thread rolling admirably without me, and will undoubtedly do so without further interventions on my behalf.
The entire Scriptural emphasis is on the certainty, not uncertainty, of that which people held in their hand. Uncertainty about the true text is simply not found anywhere in Scripture. I can’t find one verse that sounds at all like what modern theologians sound like when they talk “original autographs” and inspiration. Shouldn’t that give us pause?
Our theological statements about Scripture don’t sound like Scripture’s statements about Scripture. That means we’ve gone wrong somewhere, no matter how we try to slice and dice it, no matter what our logic tells us. Jesus didn’t say, “The Scripture cannot be broken, and by the way, that only applies to the original autographs.” The whole assumption was that they had those unbreakable Scriptures in their hands to use as their authority.
II Timothy 3:16 was talking about what Timothy held in his hand, which was profitable to equip, and which he was supposed to preach (4:2). It wasn’t an abstract theoretical statement about something that happened hundreds of years ago and might or might not guarantee the value of the Greek translation he used to preach in Ephesus. 4:2 just continues 3:16-17 — some of the words are even the same. Warfield shifted the paradigm, and we need to shift it back and read 3:16 in context again.
Peter, writing to Greek speakers and readers, said they had a “sure word of prophecy” — and they had a translation. Today, by contrast, we hear people saying everywhere that even the original language text we have isn’t “sure”. Something has gone far amiss. We posit uncertainty, whiile the Scriptures preach certainty. Our entire approach needs blown up.
As some already know, I could go on at length, but I’ll stop. :) You gentlemen have kept this thread rolling admirably without me, and will undoubtedly do so without further interventions on my behalf.
[JG] but he and others are useful in demonstrating that the Warfield / Westcott / Hort / A.A. Hodge view of a pure text (and inspiration) as “limited only to the original manuscripts” was a new invention, and thus suspect.“Suspect” I can live with. It means it deserves to be carefully evaluated. But “suspect” does not equal “false.”
I’ve been distancing myself somewhat from Westcott & Hort through this discussion, though, because I didn’t personally arrive at my view of things by studying their view of things. For me, it’s a process of elimination.
If the word-perfect traditional text view is (a) not taught in Scripture and (b) doesn’t fit what we actually see, there must be a better view of the situation. It seems to me that as the question of the relationship between MSS and text (which, lets be fair, was not really in focus in Turretin’s day) became more of an issue, conservative scholars reached a consensus for “autographa” pretty quickly. This is consistent with the pattern of development of theology through the ages.
A question previously not much considered becomes a major issue, then people committed to orthodoxy wrestle with details that were previously either taken for granted or never thought about. It’s what theology has always had to do.
[JG] Our theological statements about Scripture don’t sound like Scripture’s statements about Scripture. That means we’ve gone wrong somewhere, no matter how we try to slice and dice it…I don’t think it does. Our statements about the Trinity don’t sound like Scripture’s either…. nor baptism or any number of other topics. Theology is not restatement of Scripture, it is explanation of Scripture.
[JG] Jesus didn’t say, “The Scripture cannot be broken, and by the way, that only applies to the original autographs.” The whole assumption was that they had those unbreakable Scriptures in their hands to use as their authority.True. And this assumption ought to continue. As I’ve been arguing, there is no reason to doubt the unbreakableness of the Scriptures just because we face the MS issue honestly.
Likewise for 2 Tim.3.16 and 4:2. None of that is in dispute… and nobody I know of is saying “Let’s start preaching that the word is uncertain.” Rather, the conservative view is that the sure word of prophecy is still sure, but we’re not going to pretend the MSS don’t differ or that there’s a group somewhere that has the ability to tell which MSS are correct and preserve a perfect text. The Bible doesn’t teach this, so our “solution” needs to stick with revelation on both sides of the tension (the two sides being: Scripture’s integrity and human beings’ fallibility)
[JG] Today, by contrast, we hear people saying everywhere that even the original language text we have isn’t “sure”. Something has gone far amiss.This is exaggerated. The only place you hear this is when the subject of texts and MSS come up… which would come up a lot less if KJVO hadn’t come along. I never even knew there were different manuscripts until I got to college, though, and that isn’t right. As pastors, we don’t want our flock to discover this for the first time from someone who is hostile to the faith.
The situation simply is not binary. We do not have to choose between total certainty of every word and nagging doubt about the sufficiency of our Bibles. To flip it around, we do not have to choose between nagging doubt about the sufficiency of our Bibles and concocting a doctrine of word-perfect traditional text.
(I think it’s interesting that folks on that side of things keep ignoring the question of whether the traditional text itself has changed. It has. And several English translations preceded the KJV—each containing some different words than the ones before. If the people of that era had believed that 100% certainty of every word was required in order to have confidence in Scriptures, their faith would have collapsed whenever a new English Bible came out. As it is, the KJV translators took the reality of uncertain MS readings in stride and there was no massive doubt movement as KJV replaced the Geneva. The perfect traditional text narrative simply does not fit the history.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Stunica -> Erasmus -> Colinaeus -> Stephens -> Beza (1611) -> Elzivir -> Scrivener
Among these editions, you do not have a 100% word for word match. They are not all identical at the word level.
How many words have to be different before you have “less than 100% certainty of every word”? One. If even one word changes, you have a changing traditional text… and one edition is purer than another… and somebody had a version that was less than 100% pure (textually).
(The fact that there are differences among editions of the traditional text is documented even by the Trinitarian Bible Society, a group that is pro-TR and publishes TR based translations as their main thing. http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/tr-art.pdf)
So even those who take a traditional text view are forced to take a non-binary position, if they deal with the facts. They have to say “the differences really don’t effect meaning” and the like. Which sounds a whole lot like what I’m saying. So they end up having to separate word-for-word certainty from confidence in the unbreakableness of God’s Word and sufficiency of the Bibles we have… just as I do.
(Edit: here’s another very interesting document from TBS… http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf This group is an interesting mix. They favor traditional text but are not KJVO.)
Among these editions, you do not have a 100% word for word match. They are not all identical at the word level.
How many words have to be different before you have “less than 100% certainty of every word”? One. If even one word changes, you have a changing traditional text… and one edition is purer than another… and somebody had a version that was less than 100% pure (textually).
(The fact that there are differences among editions of the traditional text is documented even by the Trinitarian Bible Society, a group that is pro-TR and publishes TR based translations as their main thing. http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/tr-art.pdf)
So even those who take a traditional text view are forced to take a non-binary position, if they deal with the facts. They have to say “the differences really don’t effect meaning” and the like. Which sounds a whole lot like what I’m saying. So they end up having to separate word-for-word certainty from confidence in the unbreakableness of God’s Word and sufficiency of the Bibles we have… just as I do.
(Edit: here’s another very interesting document from TBS… http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf This group is an interesting mix. They favor traditional text but are not KJVO.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’d agree with that. I don’t have to agree with Peter on everything to disagree with Warfield.
To be honest, the tone of Peter’s statements about the authority of Scripture matches the tone of Scriptural statements on the topic, and your tone doesn’t. I understand the issue with which you are grappling. Nobody here thinks the issue isn’t there. But when our explanation sounds like it is contrary to Scripture, we need to stop and think really, really hard.
That autographal disclaimer is rubbish. We’re wrongly focused on the piece of paper, rather than the words. Sloppy thinking — the ink and paper aren’t what matters. So I’ll say it differently:
Flawed manuscripts? It’s covered, because I talked about words. An inaccurate copy is, of course, errant because the words aren’t God’s (this isn’t hard :)). On the other hand, accurate apographa are as “inerrant” as autographa.
I sat in a very large IFB church (BJU circles, everyone here has heard of it) and heard the pastor tell his people that their Bible isn’t inspired, because inspiration is limited to the original autographs. Everything in the Scriptures affirms the value and authority of Book-in-hand. We do the opposite.
We worship at the altar of “original autographs”, something never mentioned in Scripture. It’s silly. What was the original autograph of the Ten Commandments, the first copy or the second? Was the second copy a copy or an original autograph? Was it inspired or simply a case of miraculous preservation? Who cares? Both were fully God’s Word and inerrant, because the words were from God.
If I’ve drifted off-topic a little, I’ll come back with this. Jesus affirmed single-word certainty in our classic proof-text for both verbal inspiration and inerrancy. Nothing in Scripture suggests anything contrary to single-word certainty, and other texts appear to affirm it. So if our formulations for dealing with the difficulties of the manuscript evidence drift from that, and we are questioning single-word certainty, then we are also effectively questioning verbal inspiration and inerrancy, or turning them into a meaningless construct. We have to fall back on “sufficiency”, and the question of verbal inspiration and inerrancy simply becomes an interesting theoretical topic for professional theologians to debate, with no reality or substance for pastors and the man in the pew.
“The Scripture cannot be broken (down to the very word)” means nothing if I can’t know for certain what the very words are. Inerrancy and verbal inspiration both crumble under verbal uncertainty. They are of no value unless we know the words.
I’m not arguing KJVO. I’m denying the “uncertainty” doctrine that is often used by KJVO opponents. It’s not binary. I don’t have to accept KJVO to reject uncertainty.
[Aaron Blumer] “Suspect” I can live with. It means it deserves to be carefully evaluated. But “suspect” does not equal “false.”I chose the word carefully. :)
[Aaron Blumer]If theology’s explanation has an emphasis contrary to the emphasis of Scripture, something is wrong.[JG] Our theological statements about Scripture don’t sound like Scripture’s statements about Scripture. That means we’ve gone wrong somewhere, no matter how we try to slice and dice it…I don’t think it does. Our statements about the Trinity don’t sound like Scripture’s either…. nor baptism or any number of other topics. Theology is not restatement of Scripture, it is explanation of Scripture.
To be honest, the tone of Peter’s statements about the authority of Scripture matches the tone of Scriptural statements on the topic, and your tone doesn’t. I understand the issue with which you are grappling. Nobody here thinks the issue isn’t there. But when our explanation sounds like it is contrary to Scripture, we need to stop and think really, really hard.
[Aaron Blumer]Name me one well-known conservative theologian (other than the Lord Jesus Christ) who doesn’t attach “in the original autographs” to any statement of inerrancy. Find me the quotes by well-known theologians that leave that autograph disclaimer out. Jesus didn’t say it, but we always do.[JG] Jesus didn’t say, “The Scripture cannot be broken, and by the way, that only applies to the original autographs.” The whole assumption was that they had those unbreakable Scriptures in their hands to use as their authority.True. And this assumption ought to continue. As I’ve been arguing, there is no reason to doubt the unbreakableness of the Scriptures just because we face the MS issue honestly.
That autographal disclaimer is rubbish. We’re wrongly focused on the piece of paper, rather than the words. Sloppy thinking — the ink and paper aren’t what matters. So I’ll say it differently:
[My Statement] God’s words, all the words that He inspired, comprising the entirety of the Scriptures, are fully inerrant.The end. Nothing more has to be said. We don’t need autographal disclaimers, and we shouldn’t use them. Inerrancy is NOT limited to the original autographs. It is inherent in God’s words, no matter which pieces of paper or web sites or audio media record them.
Flawed manuscripts? It’s covered, because I talked about words. An inaccurate copy is, of course, errant because the words aren’t God’s (this isn’t hard :)). On the other hand, accurate apographa are as “inerrant” as autographa.
[Aaron Blumer] Likewise for 2 Tim.3.16 and 4:2. None of that is in dispute… and nobody I know of is saying “Let’s start preaching that the word is uncertain.”Of course it is in dispute. How many people say, “Inspiration is limited to the original autographs?” Do you call the translation that Timothy preached from “inspired”? Paul did. Today’s theologians won’t, or they’ll water it down with “derived inspiration”. Paul just forgot to put “derived” in II Timothy 3:16? Really? We’ve taken Warfield’s redefinition of inspiration as if it were itself inspired, and as a result we’ve robbed our Bible-in-hand of the authority Scripture gave it.
I sat in a very large IFB church (BJU circles, everyone here has heard of it) and heard the pastor tell his people that their Bible isn’t inspired, because inspiration is limited to the original autographs. Everything in the Scriptures affirms the value and authority of Book-in-hand. We do the opposite.
[Aaron Blumer]You hear it every time inerrancy is taught. Chicago statement, for instance. Inerrancy is limited to the original autographs. Everyone says so. You don’t have an original autograph? Logic. You don’t have an inerrant Bible.[JG] Today, by contrast, we hear people saying everywhere that even the original language text we have isn’t “sure”. Something has gone far amiss.This is exaggerated. The only place you hear this is when the subject of texts and MSS come up…
We worship at the altar of “original autographs”, something never mentioned in Scripture. It’s silly. What was the original autograph of the Ten Commandments, the first copy or the second? Was the second copy a copy or an original autograph? Was it inspired or simply a case of miraculous preservation? Who cares? Both were fully God’s Word and inerrant, because the words were from God.
If I’ve drifted off-topic a little, I’ll come back with this. Jesus affirmed single-word certainty in our classic proof-text for both verbal inspiration and inerrancy. Nothing in Scripture suggests anything contrary to single-word certainty, and other texts appear to affirm it. So if our formulations for dealing with the difficulties of the manuscript evidence drift from that, and we are questioning single-word certainty, then we are also effectively questioning verbal inspiration and inerrancy, or turning them into a meaningless construct. We have to fall back on “sufficiency”, and the question of verbal inspiration and inerrancy simply becomes an interesting theoretical topic for professional theologians to debate, with no reality or substance for pastors and the man in the pew.
“The Scripture cannot be broken (down to the very word)” means nothing if I can’t know for certain what the very words are. Inerrancy and verbal inspiration both crumble under verbal uncertainty. They are of no value unless we know the words.
I’m not arguing KJVO. I’m denying the “uncertainty” doctrine that is often used by KJVO opponents. It’s not binary. I don’t have to accept KJVO to reject uncertainty.
You seem to be trying to carve out a really awkward view. But we all have to stand where we believe it’s right to stand.
I still maintain that there is no “uncertainty emphasis” even though doctrinal statements on bibliology just about always have the “autographs” reference. This is added precision that is really only necessary because of views claiming inspiration of translations, etc.
Jesus did not say it because (a) it wouldn’t have made sense at the time (the Scriptures were still being written) and (b) nobody was going around claiming they had a uniquely-inspired translation.
In this discussion, my emphasis has been on uncertainty to a degree (though really, reading it fairly, the only uncertainty I favor is about the word-perfect status of any of our texts), because I’m responding to inappropriate certainty about matters that are, whether we like it or not, uncertain.
It’s really not accurate to evaluate an emphasis by looking at statements made in response to a specific problem.
There is no uncertainty emphasis in the pulpit at my church, for example… nor in my writing if someone takes it as a whole. Even on when talking about preservation, I go to Scripture, assume what I have is certain, authoritative holy writ and use it as a basis for argument.
So… I’m a bit confused as to what your view is. Is it that the traditional text is not word perfect but we should avoid saying so as much possible so that we emphasize certainty? I think a better course is to understand that uncertainty about some of the words does not equal uncertainty about the whole. Otherwise, we risk a kind of dishonesty.
Not directly related, but this seems like a good place to store some of this info. The Cambridge 1873 edition of the KJV has several fascinated appendices. Appendix A lists places where they went with later versions of the KJV rather than 1611. These are not all spelling changes! Here’s a sample just from Genesis. They list differences for pretty much every book of the Bible.
The middle column is the 1611 reading. The right column shows their chosen reading and what KJV edition it appears in.
I still maintain that there is no “uncertainty emphasis” even though doctrinal statements on bibliology just about always have the “autographs” reference. This is added precision that is really only necessary because of views claiming inspiration of translations, etc.
Jesus did not say it because (a) it wouldn’t have made sense at the time (the Scriptures were still being written) and (b) nobody was going around claiming they had a uniquely-inspired translation.
In this discussion, my emphasis has been on uncertainty to a degree (though really, reading it fairly, the only uncertainty I favor is about the word-perfect status of any of our texts), because I’m responding to inappropriate certainty about matters that are, whether we like it or not, uncertain.
It’s really not accurate to evaluate an emphasis by looking at statements made in response to a specific problem.
There is no uncertainty emphasis in the pulpit at my church, for example… nor in my writing if someone takes it as a whole. Even on when talking about preservation, I go to Scripture, assume what I have is certain, authoritative holy writ and use it as a basis for argument.
So… I’m a bit confused as to what your view is. Is it that the traditional text is not word perfect but we should avoid saying so as much possible so that we emphasize certainty? I think a better course is to understand that uncertainty about some of the words does not equal uncertainty about the whole. Otherwise, we risk a kind of dishonesty.
Not directly related, but this seems like a good place to store some of this info. The Cambridge 1873 edition of the KJV has several fascinated appendices. Appendix A lists places where they went with later versions of the KJV rather than 1611. These are not all spelling changes! Here’s a sample just from Genesis. They list differences for pretty much every book of the Bible.
The middle column is the 1611 reading. The right column shows their chosen reading and what KJV edition it appears in.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The Cambridge 1873 Appendix E also lists places where the 1611 text differs from either the Stephens or Beza editions of the TR. These are not all spelling differences either. There are different words here and there.
Here’s a sample…. not easy to read, but makes the point.
§ I. Passages in which the text of the Authorized Version differs from those of Stephens (1550) and of Beza (1589) jointly.
S. MATT. ii. 11. εἶδον (for εὗρον) Compl., Bishops’. ix. 18. ἄρχων εἷς Compl., Vulg. x. 10. ῥάβδους Compl. S. MARK iv. 18. omit second οὗτοί εἰσιν Compl. v. 38. καὶ κλαίοντας Erasm., Ald., Vulg. ix. 42. τῶν μικρῶν τούτων Compl., Vulg. (“these” 1611, “these” 1638). xv. 3. add to the end αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο Compl., Stephens 1546, 1549, Bishops’. S. LUKE iii. 31. μενὰμ Erasm., Ald., Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops’, Authorized before 1629 (Cambridge). 35. Ἑβὲρ Erasm., Tyndale, Great Bible, Bishops’. See Appendix A, p. lxxxi., and note 2. xii. 56. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς Compl., Vulg. (Clementine), Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops’: but the reverse order is found in Erasm., Tyndale, Geneva 1557, &c. xx. 31. καὶ is inserted before οὐ κατέλιπον by Erasm. and all English. S. JOHN viii. 6. add to the end μὴ προσποιούμενος Compl., Stephens 1546, 1549, Bishops’ (“as though he heard them not” italicised not earlier than 1769). xviii. 1. τοῦ Κέδρων apparently. ACTS vii. 16. Ἐμὸρ Erasm., Ald., Tyndale, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops’, Authorized before 1629 (Camb.). See Appendix A, p. lxxxii. viii. 13. δυνάμεις καὶ σημεῖα γινόμενα Erasm., Ald. (δυνάμεις καὶ σημεία μεγάλα γινόμενα Compl.), Tyndale (Coverdale), Great Bible, Bishops’. The marginal reading is due to 1762. xxvii. 29. ἐκπέσωμεν Compl., Tyndale, Bishops’. EPH. vi. 24. om. Ἀμήν Vulg. See Appendix, p. lxxxii. 2 TIM. i. 18. μοι added after διηκόνησε Vulg. (Clementine), &c., all English. PHILEM. 7. χαρὰν Compl., Vulg., all English: χάριν Erasm., Stephens, Beza. HEB. xii. 24. τὸ Ἄβελ Erasm., Ald. (quam sanguis Abel Erasm. Lat. and English versions up to the Bishops’: “that of” 1611, not italicised before 1638). 2 PETER i. 1. Σίμων Compl., Vulg., all English, except Tyndale 1526, Geneva 1557 (“Simeon”): but Συμέων Erasm., &c. 1 JOHN iii. 16. τοῦ θεοῦ added after ἀγάπην Compl., Vulg. (“of God” italicised as late as 1769). JUDE 12. ὑμῖν added after συνευωχούμενοι Compl., Geneva 1557, Bishops’ (the italics are our own). REV. xi. 4. αἱ prefixed to δύο λυχνίαι Compl. xvii. 4. ἦν (for ἡ) περιβεβλημένη Compl., Vulg., all English. xviii. 1. ἄλλον prefixed to ἄγγελον Compl., Erasm., Ald., all English. 5. ἐκολλήθησαν (for ἠκολούθησαν) Compl. (“pervenerunt” Vulg., “are gone up” Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops’: “are commen” Geneva 1557; “have reached” 1611). xix. 18. τε added after ἐλευθέρων Compl. (“both” italicised 1769). xxi. 13. καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ…καὶ ἀπὸ νότου…καὶ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν Compl., Vulg., Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops’: καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ Geneva 1557: καὶ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν Geneva 1557, Authorized. Total 29. The variation in Heb. x. 23 “faith” for “hope” is not included, since it is a mere oversight of our Translators. (Tregelles’ Horne, Vol. IV. p. 227, note). In Acts ix. 29, ἐλάλει τε might seem omitted, but “spake boldly” is adopted after “spake frankly” of Geneva 1557 as adequately rendering παρρησιαζόμενος…ἐλάλει τε.
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version. 1873 (c). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Here’s a sample…. not easy to read, but makes the point.
S. MATT. ii. 11. εἶδον (for εὗρον) Compl., Bishops’. ix. 18. ἄρχων εἷς Compl., Vulg. x. 10. ῥάβδους Compl. S. MARK iv. 18. omit second οὗτοί εἰσιν Compl. v. 38. καὶ κλαίοντας Erasm., Ald., Vulg. ix. 42. τῶν μικρῶν τούτων Compl., Vulg. (“these” 1611, “these” 1638). xv. 3. add to the end αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο Compl., Stephens 1546, 1549, Bishops’. S. LUKE iii. 31. μενὰμ Erasm., Ald., Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops’, Authorized before 1629 (Cambridge). 35. Ἑβὲρ Erasm., Tyndale, Great Bible, Bishops’. See Appendix A, p. lxxxi., and note 2. xii. 56. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς Compl., Vulg. (Clementine), Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops’: but the reverse order is found in Erasm., Tyndale, Geneva 1557, &c. xx. 31. καὶ is inserted before οὐ κατέλιπον by Erasm. and all English. S. JOHN viii. 6. add to the end μὴ προσποιούμενος Compl., Stephens 1546, 1549, Bishops’ (“as though he heard them not” italicised not earlier than 1769). xviii. 1. τοῦ Κέδρων apparently. ACTS vii. 16. Ἐμὸρ Erasm., Ald., Tyndale, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops’, Authorized before 1629 (Camb.). See Appendix A, p. lxxxii. viii. 13. δυνάμεις καὶ σημεῖα γινόμενα Erasm., Ald. (δυνάμεις καὶ σημεία μεγάλα γινόμενα Compl.), Tyndale (Coverdale), Great Bible, Bishops’. The marginal reading is due to 1762. xxvii. 29. ἐκπέσωμεν Compl., Tyndale, Bishops’. EPH. vi. 24. om. Ἀμήν Vulg. See Appendix, p. lxxxii. 2 TIM. i. 18. μοι added after διηκόνησε Vulg. (Clementine), &c., all English. PHILEM. 7. χαρὰν Compl., Vulg., all English: χάριν Erasm., Stephens, Beza. HEB. xii. 24. τὸ Ἄβελ Erasm., Ald. (quam sanguis Abel Erasm. Lat. and English versions up to the Bishops’: “that of” 1611, not italicised before 1638). 2 PETER i. 1. Σίμων Compl., Vulg., all English, except Tyndale 1526, Geneva 1557 (“Simeon”): but Συμέων Erasm., &c. 1 JOHN iii. 16. τοῦ θεοῦ added after ἀγάπην Compl., Vulg. (“of God” italicised as late as 1769). JUDE 12. ὑμῖν added after συνευωχούμενοι Compl., Geneva 1557, Bishops’ (the italics are our own). REV. xi. 4. αἱ prefixed to δύο λυχνίαι Compl. xvii. 4. ἦν (for ἡ) περιβεβλημένη Compl., Vulg., all English. xviii. 1. ἄλλον prefixed to ἄγγελον Compl., Erasm., Ald., all English. 5. ἐκολλήθησαν (for ἠκολούθησαν) Compl. (“pervenerunt” Vulg., “are gone up” Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops’: “are commen” Geneva 1557; “have reached” 1611). xix. 18. τε added after ἐλευθέρων Compl. (“both” italicised 1769). xxi. 13. καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ…καὶ ἀπὸ νότου…καὶ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν Compl., Vulg., Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops’: καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ Geneva 1557: καὶ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν Geneva 1557, Authorized. Total 29. The variation in Heb. x. 23 “faith” for “hope” is not included, since it is a mere oversight of our Translators. (Tregelles’ Horne, Vol. IV. p. 227, note). In Acts ix. 29, ἐλάλει τε might seem omitted, but “spake boldly” is adopted after “spake frankly” of Geneva 1557 as adequately rendering παρρησιαζόμενος…ἐλάλει τε.
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version. 1873 (c). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Jesus did not say it because (a) it wouldn’t have made sense at the time (the Scriptures were still being written) and (b) nobody was going around claiming they had a uniquely-inspired translation.As to a), no Scriptures were being written at the time Jesus spoke, and I don’t see why, if it is necessary to put autographal disclaimers today, it wouldn’t have been necessary to use them at that time for the OT (the Scriptures to which He was referring). The OT was as complete then as the NT is today. This argument doesn’t make any sense to me.
As to b), this is factually mistaken. Not that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint] Wikipedia is a great source, but I’m pretty sure it is accurate on this:
The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its translators.The Letter of Aristeas was 2nd century BC. Philo was apparently 20 BC to 50 AD. There’s nothing new under the sun. The idea of a second act of inspiration in translation is not new. It was current in Jesus’ and Paul’s day. Jesus still spoke with certaintly without autographal disclaimers, and so did Paul, even attributing theopneustos to that translation.
(….)
According to the legend first recorded in the (pseudepigraphic) Letter of Aristeas, and repeated with embellishments in Philo, Josephus and various later Jewish and Christian sources, Jewish scholars first translated the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) into Koine Greek in the 3rd century BCE.[7] [8] The traditional explanation is that Ptolemy II sponsored the translation [9] for use by the many Alexandrian Jews who were fluent in Koine Greek, but not in Hebrew. According to the record in the Talmud,
‘King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one’s room and said: “Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.” God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.‘[10] (emphasis mine)
Aaron, I can’t spend more time on this discussion right now, but I think I’ve pretty well expressed my concerns here. You can get more of my thinking http://mindrenewers.com/2011/11/15/the-scriptures-inspired-or-expired/ here (and especially the two main supporting pages) if you want, for a start, though I haven’t really tackled preservation yet. But certainly, we’ve gone far astray on what we are saying about inspiration in modern theologies. We are pushing uncertainty and undermining confidence in the Book people hold in their hand. The whole emphasis is far from the emphasis of Scripture.
We don’t have any issues to deal with that weren’t present in the days of Jesus and Paul, or the Westminster Divines and Turretin either, for that matter (they had to deal with the claims for the Vulgate). There’s nothing new. But Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Westminster Divines, and the Scholastics simply didn’t adopt the kinds of autographal disclaimers for both inspiration and inerrancy that modern theologians use. And it ought to give us pause, because our focus has gone astray. People forgot to include autographal disclaimers for 1800 years, and now we have to include them every time? Doesn’t compute.
Blessings to you and Peter, but I really have to drop out of this, so I don’t necessarily expect you to take the time to answer what I’ve said here. I know you also are busy. Just some stuff to think about.
[JG] The idea of a second act of inspiration in translation is not new. It was current in Jesus’ and Paul’s day.I want to make sure I understand - in your statement are you affirming belief in a “second act of inspiration in translation”?
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
JohnBrian, I don’t JG is going there. He’s arguing that if references to “autographa” are necessary today, they would have been just as necessary back in Jesus’ day because people were making the same kinds of double inspiration claims then that some are now.
I’m not convinced. Though it’s true that there is some evidence that some were claiming the LXX translators were inspired, there does not seem to have been a movement to enshrine that idea as doctrine. As for Paul attributing theopneustos to the LXX, I don’t believe that’s accurate. He attributed theopneustos to “Scripture” and quoted LXX as “Scripure.” This is not the same thing. The reason is that then, as now, there is seldom any reason to distinguish “Scripture” from “translations of Scripture.”
As an example, I routinely say in preaching, “The Scriptures tell us…” then quote or read from my Bible. There is a technical difference between what God inspired and what we have in English. The difference matters in direct proportion to the degree to which idiosyncratic/heterodox doctrines of reinspiration are being used to divide, form sects, split churches, etc. The idea of KJV as a uniquely inspired (or reinspired) translation came along in the 20th century and quickly became a tool for causing division and rallying supporters and stirring antagonisms. Classic definition of heresy.
If there had been a major “double inspiration” style heresy in the early church, I have no doubt that the apostles would have made some of the distinctions we do today— in reference to the exclusive inspiration of the autographa.
Given the confusion that abounds on this subject, I think those concerned for sound doctrine must take a firm stand against these errors. It’s certainly not a good idea to come as close to them as possible while simultaneously rejecting “KJVO.” Trying to carve out that micrometer-thin distinction can only breed confusion.
I want to be clear, though, that I believe there is plenty of room for the position that the traditional text is best. It’s just wrong to say that it’s perfect or that favoring the TR is a biblical doctrine.
It’s also not true that if you make an autographa distinction in your doctrinal statement, you have an “emphasis” on uncertainty. Emphasis comes from how much attention you give to something and how intense and passionate that attention is. A distinction that is only made in reaction to the errors of others and only referenced when that error comes up can hardly be called an emphasis.
I’m not convinced. Though it’s true that there is some evidence that some were claiming the LXX translators were inspired, there does not seem to have been a movement to enshrine that idea as doctrine. As for Paul attributing theopneustos to the LXX, I don’t believe that’s accurate. He attributed theopneustos to “Scripture” and quoted LXX as “Scripure.” This is not the same thing. The reason is that then, as now, there is seldom any reason to distinguish “Scripture” from “translations of Scripture.”
As an example, I routinely say in preaching, “The Scriptures tell us…” then quote or read from my Bible. There is a technical difference between what God inspired and what we have in English. The difference matters in direct proportion to the degree to which idiosyncratic/heterodox doctrines of reinspiration are being used to divide, form sects, split churches, etc. The idea of KJV as a uniquely inspired (or reinspired) translation came along in the 20th century and quickly became a tool for causing division and rallying supporters and stirring antagonisms. Classic definition of heresy.
If there had been a major “double inspiration” style heresy in the early church, I have no doubt that the apostles would have made some of the distinctions we do today— in reference to the exclusive inspiration of the autographa.
Given the confusion that abounds on this subject, I think those concerned for sound doctrine must take a firm stand against these errors. It’s certainly not a good idea to come as close to them as possible while simultaneously rejecting “KJVO.” Trying to carve out that micrometer-thin distinction can only breed confusion.
I want to be clear, though, that I believe there is plenty of room for the position that the traditional text is best. It’s just wrong to say that it’s perfect or that favoring the TR is a biblical doctrine.
It’s also not true that if you make an autographa distinction in your doctrinal statement, you have an “emphasis” on uncertainty. Emphasis comes from how much attention you give to something and how intense and passionate that attention is. A distinction that is only made in reaction to the errors of others and only referenced when that error comes up can hardly be called an emphasis.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’m with Aaron on this one. If I’m teaching or preaching and making a statement about the Bibles we are using, I feel absolutely comfortable saying, “Our Bibles are inspired and inerrant” while holding up the particular copy of the particular translation I am using. The addition “…inasmuch as they accurately reflect the original manuscripts” is understood and not necessary to repeat every time. And “inasmuch as they accurately reflect the original manuscripts” is understood to mean “inasmuch as they accurately translate the extant copies of the original manuscripts” because of course we do not have the original manuscripts.
But it MUST be understood, otherwise we have no way to distinguish translations that do NOT accurately reflect the extant copies of the original manuscripts, such as the New World Translation. So if we are crafting a precisely worded doctrinal statement or teaching specifically on the doctrine of bibliology, we MUST make that distinction that the Bibles in our hands are inspired to the extent that they accurately convey the true Word of God.
But just like Jesus and the disciples didn’t spell that out in detail every time they made a statement about God’s Word, neither must we.
But it MUST be understood, otherwise we have no way to distinguish translations that do NOT accurately reflect the extant copies of the original manuscripts, such as the New World Translation. So if we are crafting a precisely worded doctrinal statement or teaching specifically on the doctrine of bibliology, we MUST make that distinction that the Bibles in our hands are inspired to the extent that they accurately convey the true Word of God.
But just like Jesus and the disciples didn’t spell that out in detail every time they made a statement about God’s Word, neither must we.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Peter - I’m glad to see that you had the time to get back online; I am assuming that your dad is recovering well.
To all-
I mentioned this before, but I’m not sure if anyone actually replied to http://sharperiron.org/comment/37052#comment-37052] this particular post , so I wanted to bring it up again. We keep talking about the historic method of how the Scripture was transmitted, and I’d written this:
If it is sufficient for Moses to demand obedience to God via things that have been verbally communicated to him - and then turn around and demand compliance by both the Israelites and the unbelieving Egyptians - I should think that it is more than sufficient to believe that God’s word, as given to us in the totality of the manuscripts is more than sufficient for today. We have the examples that I cited above - where God sends a prophet to verbally command obedience in Moses, Jesus’ repeated use of the LXX to teach in addition to what he’d memorized, Paul’s use of the LXX, and Peter’s arguments based on Paul’s letters - and all we know is that God used them. That should be more than sufficient for us.
I also mentioned that we didn’t even have access to many printed words until the early 1800’s due to the expense and labor associated with making copies of Scripture. So the reason why our understanding of the theology of text transmission is “deficient” (I don’t like that term, but I’ll use it) is because Christians never had to worry about it until at least the mid-1800’s. THAT tells me that this is a relatively new idea/heresy, but to seriously discuss it is proving difficult because of the pernicious idea that God must have done it in a way that we like or can accept. Who is God here? Us, or God?
I am beginning to regard this whole discussion (of manuscripts and text authority) as a complete and utter waste of time. Odious insinuations aside, Peter has not (cannot?) prove any kind of consistent historical or scriptural basis for the transmission of one standard sacred text, much less any of his other assertions that ‘the believing community’ knows instinctively what is the best readings. Nor can he provide any kind of objective evidence for how we can know any of what he’s saying is true.
God has not clearly explained how he has chosen to preserve His word for us. That is His prerogative. Our command is to obey, and teach and make disciples.
Paul summed up this entire discussion in one paragraph:
To all-
I mentioned this before, but I’m not sure if anyone actually replied to http://sharperiron.org/comment/37052#comment-37052] this particular post , so I wanted to bring it up again. We keep talking about the historic method of how the Scripture was transmitted, and I’d written this:
I was struck by this again this morning, when I was reading in Exodus. God appears to Moses while he’s in Midian and says “Go Free My People”. Moses argues against God, and finally, ultimately, complies. In the course of his discussion, he says “Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” [and] God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”[Charlie] Richard Muller is a historian, not a theologian. PRRD is historical theology. That said, I believe PVK’s point is that the Reformed never talked about “original autographs” in the manner that Warfield did. They believed that the texts they had were preserved. Thus, the idea seems to be that we deduce the purity of the text FROM the church’s use, rather than trying to determine the correct text, and then use it.That makes sense to me. Part of my underlying presuppositions is that we see use of the Scripture in the NT as the final authority without deference to text type or manuscript - Jesus’ citations of the OT (Mt. 4:1-10) with Paul’s use of the LXX (Acts 13:26-48 and other epistles) and Peter’s references to Paul’s writings (II Peter 3:15-16) are all on the same level of authority in the New Testament. If that’s the case, then why would it have changed for today’s church? Did God somehow stop preserving the text and so that now we have to use only one manuscript family or translation? If so, then what criteria do we use to know that God chose to use the (blank text/manuscript) and not the (blank text family/manuscript)? If it’s determined by the believing community - as he posits - then the people that use the Alexandrian or Eclectic texts are ipso facto not a part of the believing community because they don’t use the right text, but that can’t be true either, because there are godly Christians who do use them.
Of course, the value of their perspective is both real and limited. They were 1) working extremely hard to get away from the need for any kind of magisterium and 2) before the arrival of historical consciousness in general and the history of textual transmission in particular. In other words, they were not aware of the breadth of the differences occurring in manuscripts in use by the church. IOW, I don’t think the Protestant Scholastic doctrine of preservation ought to be the contemporary Protestant doctrine. Or, it needs to be heavily refined, accounting for the differences in use.
As an aside, it wasn’t really until the Gutenberg Press (early 1450’s) that the Scriptures could even really be distributed to many people, and the steam driven printing presses weren’t developed for the mass production of books (on a scale that we think of) until the early 1800’s. So that means to me that somehow God managed to preserve His Word just fine for at least 1300 years at a bare minimum without this becoming a significant issue, and the relative ‘novelty’ of this debate speaks volumes against it.
If it is sufficient for Moses to demand obedience to God via things that have been verbally communicated to him - and then turn around and demand compliance by both the Israelites and the unbelieving Egyptians - I should think that it is more than sufficient to believe that God’s word, as given to us in the totality of the manuscripts is more than sufficient for today. We have the examples that I cited above - where God sends a prophet to verbally command obedience in Moses, Jesus’ repeated use of the LXX to teach in addition to what he’d memorized, Paul’s use of the LXX, and Peter’s arguments based on Paul’s letters - and all we know is that God used them. That should be more than sufficient for us.
I also mentioned that we didn’t even have access to many printed words until the early 1800’s due to the expense and labor associated with making copies of Scripture. So the reason why our understanding of the theology of text transmission is “deficient” (I don’t like that term, but I’ll use it) is because Christians never had to worry about it until at least the mid-1800’s. THAT tells me that this is a relatively new idea/heresy, but to seriously discuss it is proving difficult because of the pernicious idea that God must have done it in a way that we like or can accept. Who is God here? Us, or God?
I am beginning to regard this whole discussion (of manuscripts and text authority) as a complete and utter waste of time. Odious insinuations aside, Peter has not (cannot?) prove any kind of consistent historical or scriptural basis for the transmission of one standard sacred text, much less any of his other assertions that ‘the believing community’ knows instinctively what is the best readings. Nor can he provide any kind of objective evidence for how we can know any of what he’s saying is true.
God has not clearly explained how he has chosen to preserve His word for us. That is His prerogative. Our command is to obey, and teach and make disciples.
Paul summed up this entire discussion in one paragraph:
[I Timothy 1:1-7]Maybe we ought to just listen to what Paul says instead of doing what he condemns.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
To Timothy, my true child in the faith:
Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Thank you for asking BEFORE launching your ICBMs. :)
In fact, theopneustos isn’t a first act. It’s not an “act” at all. It is an “is”, not a “was”, an adjective, not a verb. It is in II Timothy 3:16, which is talking about what the Scriptures are. It isn’t in II Peter 1:21, which talks about how they came to us. We need to put away Warfield for a minute and read II Tim. 3:16 in context. Then, we can go read his first major article in which he said he was defining the word more narrowly than it had been historically AND more narrowly than Scriptural usage.
I hope we agree that Timothy was using a Greek translation of some sort in Ephesus. So 4:2 (“Preach the Word”) is talking about a translation. 3:15 is most likely talking about a translation. 3:17 is talking about a translation that equips those Timothy is supposed to be teaching (2:2) who will not all know Hebrew, if any of them do. So 3:16 “profitable” is talking about a translation, or it’s meaningless in the context of someone ministering in Ephesus.
So are we going to yank theopneustos out of context, and turn it into a verb so we can anchor it only to the autographs, or are we going to do exegesis first, and then theology?
It’s an adjective describing the divine nature of the Scriptures, which obviously and implicitly flows out of their divine origin. But the emphasis is at least as much on “nature” as on “origin”, and that divine nature lives on in any reasonably accurate translation (like the one Timothy used in Ephesus).
(Channeling the Professor). Logic. What do they teach them in these schools? :) There’s a difference between an adjective and a verb, and context matters in exegesis.
And so it is murdering theopneustos (inspiration) to say it only applies to the autographs. It’s neither a first or second act in translations, it is divine nature. The Word of God is living, and its divine nature lives on in translations (see also I Peter 1:23, also probably primarily written to Greek speakers, and the last three verses in Romans which makes this abundantly clear).
Greg, I largely agree with your comment, but one major difference. “But just like Jesus and the disciples didn’t spell that out in detail every time they made a statement about God’s Word, neither must we.”
I don’t think they ever spelled it out in detail, not even once. Despite the fact that a false “translational inscripturation” view (I’ll use that instead of “second act of inspiration”) was running around, they never said the kinds of things we say, the “autographal disclaimers”. If they didn’t, why must we?
Even a five year old knows that if you copy the words wrong, you don’t have the Word of God any more. Even a ten year old knows that if a translation is wrong, it isn’t God’s Word any more. I personally think the KJVOers have people running scared so we make all kinds of disclaimers that aren’t needed and end up undermining the confidence of the man in the pew of his Book in hand. God never once made such disclaimers in the Scripture.
OK, I’m not even going to look at this thread again for a couple days — you drew me back in again :). I simply don’t have time. It’s explained in that link I gave above and the supporting links on that page, if anyone doesn’t follow what I’m saying. I’ll check back in a couple days, Lord willing.
In any event, I don’t want to hijack Peter’s thread. I mainly just wanted to make the point that if we sound uncertain, even in dealing with translations, we don’t sound like the Scriptures, and it’s time for some re-examination. Blessings to you all.
In fact, theopneustos isn’t a first act. It’s not an “act” at all. It is an “is”, not a “was”, an adjective, not a verb. It is in II Timothy 3:16, which is talking about what the Scriptures are. It isn’t in II Peter 1:21, which talks about how they came to us. We need to put away Warfield for a minute and read II Tim. 3:16 in context. Then, we can go read his first major article in which he said he was defining the word more narrowly than it had been historically AND more narrowly than Scriptural usage.
I hope we agree that Timothy was using a Greek translation of some sort in Ephesus. So 4:2 (“Preach the Word”) is talking about a translation. 3:15 is most likely talking about a translation. 3:17 is talking about a translation that equips those Timothy is supposed to be teaching (2:2) who will not all know Hebrew, if any of them do. So 3:16 “profitable” is talking about a translation, or it’s meaningless in the context of someone ministering in Ephesus.
So are we going to yank theopneustos out of context, and turn it into a verb so we can anchor it only to the autographs, or are we going to do exegesis first, and then theology?
It’s an adjective describing the divine nature of the Scriptures, which obviously and implicitly flows out of their divine origin. But the emphasis is at least as much on “nature” as on “origin”, and that divine nature lives on in any reasonably accurate translation (like the one Timothy used in Ephesus).
(Channeling the Professor). Logic. What do they teach them in these schools? :) There’s a difference between an adjective and a verb, and context matters in exegesis.
And so it is murdering theopneustos (inspiration) to say it only applies to the autographs. It’s neither a first or second act in translations, it is divine nature. The Word of God is living, and its divine nature lives on in translations (see also I Peter 1:23, also probably primarily written to Greek speakers, and the last three verses in Romans which makes this abundantly clear).
Greg, I largely agree with your comment, but one major difference. “But just like Jesus and the disciples didn’t spell that out in detail every time they made a statement about God’s Word, neither must we.”
I don’t think they ever spelled it out in detail, not even once. Despite the fact that a false “translational inscripturation” view (I’ll use that instead of “second act of inspiration”) was running around, they never said the kinds of things we say, the “autographal disclaimers”. If they didn’t, why must we?
Even a five year old knows that if you copy the words wrong, you don’t have the Word of God any more. Even a ten year old knows that if a translation is wrong, it isn’t God’s Word any more. I personally think the KJVOers have people running scared so we make all kinds of disclaimers that aren’t needed and end up undermining the confidence of the man in the pew of his Book in hand. God never once made such disclaimers in the Scripture.
OK, I’m not even going to look at this thread again for a couple days — you drew me back in again :). I simply don’t have time. It’s explained in that link I gave above and the supporting links on that page, if anyone doesn’t follow what I’m saying. I’ll check back in a couple days, Lord willing.
In any event, I don’t want to hijack Peter’s thread. I mainly just wanted to make the point that if we sound uncertain, even in dealing with translations, we don’t sound like the Scriptures, and it’s time for some re-examination. Blessings to you all.
Continuing again with the line of reasoning from Hoornbeeck, look again at Turretin who quotes Peter Martyr concerning the unimpaired integrity of Scripture in writing, “ ‘For God, who of his own mercy wished the divine letters to be preserved for us, has given them to us entire and uncorrupted.’” (Turretin, p. 73) And in another place Martyr writes, “ ‘Therefore the Scriptures remain uncorrupted, which if weakened in one or another place, will also be suspected in others.’” (Turretin, p. 73)
For good measure let me quote from Hoornbeeck again, “ ‘If the Holy Scriptures err in some things…our faith in Scripture can be neither certain nor divine.” (Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 307) To cap it all off Muller comments that “Hoornbeeck’s polemic…surely does indicate the state of the question in the seventeenth century.” (Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 307)
In sum, yes we know that no two MSS agree perfectly, but the Scripture itself and the collation of those MSS which resulted in the Masoretic Hebrew and TR has yielded a pure text, possessing unimpaired integrity. As such the Scripture is spoken of as “entire and uncorrupted” and as possessing no elements “of not importance.” So then to conclude with Muller on Hoornbeeck, “As a seventh argument, Hoornbeeck notes the oddity and novelty of Socinus’ view of Scripture: there is a ‘consensus of the Fathers and the theologians’ of later ages concerning the infallibility of Scripture against various adversities of the faith. Augustine, Epiphanius, and even the Jesuits of Louvin condemn those who deny the truth of Scripture and who claim that it is not necessary for all of its words to be inspired by the Spirit.” (Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 308) That underlined portion is just for you Brother Blumer when you said in Post #231 “First, “pure” cannot mean the removal of corruption in reference to God’s words.” If all of its words must be inspired then all of its words are pure. Please note two things: Hoornbeeck is speaking of a single text [its] and in the present tense.
Now I know you are going to disagree. And you are going to offer “counterarguments” saying things about people you have never read. But consider this for just a moment. I am arguing the Standard Sacred Text position without ever referencing a single “King James” guy.
Now to some specific points:
Concerning whether God in history gave by revelation 1 John 5:7 or not, Brother Blumer wrote,
For good measure let me quote from Hoornbeeck again, “ ‘If the Holy Scriptures err in some things…our faith in Scripture can be neither certain nor divine.” (Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 307) To cap it all off Muller comments that “Hoornbeeck’s polemic…surely does indicate the state of the question in the seventeenth century.” (Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 307)
In sum, yes we know that no two MSS agree perfectly, but the Scripture itself and the collation of those MSS which resulted in the Masoretic Hebrew and TR has yielded a pure text, possessing unimpaired integrity. As such the Scripture is spoken of as “entire and uncorrupted” and as possessing no elements “of not importance.” So then to conclude with Muller on Hoornbeeck, “As a seventh argument, Hoornbeeck notes the oddity and novelty of Socinus’ view of Scripture: there is a ‘consensus of the Fathers and the theologians’ of later ages concerning the infallibility of Scripture against various adversities of the faith. Augustine, Epiphanius, and even the Jesuits of Louvin condemn those who deny the truth of Scripture and who claim that it is not necessary for all of its words to be inspired by the Spirit.” (Muller, Post-Reformation, p. 308) That underlined portion is just for you Brother Blumer when you said in Post #231 “First, “pure” cannot mean the removal of corruption in reference to God’s words.” If all of its words must be inspired then all of its words are pure. Please note two things: Hoornbeeck is speaking of a single text [its] and in the present tense.
Now I know you are going to disagree. And you are going to offer “counterarguments” saying things about people you have never read. But consider this for just a moment. I am arguing the Standard Sacred Text position without ever referencing a single “King James” guy.
Now to some specific points:
Brother Blumer wrote,Funny that you should say this. So are you “entirely clear” on the hypostatic union, that Jesus is all God and all man or that the He is one of three persons in the pericoretic nature of the Triune God? I don’t know anyone who is “entirely clear” on these two topics yet they rest at the foundation of faith and salvation and are believed with absolute confidence. So is your faith “less confident” in these areas because you are not entirely clear?
But when it is not entirely clear what God has said, we have a less confident faith.
Brother Blumer wrote,On the contrary, I speak of the believing community merely recognizing the perfect self-authenticating words of God by the leading of the perfect Holy Spirit. “Perfect” is not ascribed to the believing community but to the perfect words of God by the perfect leading of the Holy Spirit both are taught in Scripture.
That’s actually your position… that the Bible speaks of scribal/”believing community’ perfection…
Brother Blumer’s definition of “meanest”In the historical context, what English “translations“ were in view?
“Mean” means common, ordinary or in some cases, of low quality.
Concerning whether God in history gave by revelation 1 John 5:7 or not, Brother Blumer wrote,
So, just so I’m clear, your argument here is that if two people have any difference in belief about what God has revealed, they believe in two different Gods?No no, look at it like an event in time. Like this, God parted the Red Sea or God did not part the Red Sea. Some people believe in a God that did not part the Red Sea. I believe in a God that did. Some people believe God did not give by inspiration 1 John 5:7. I believe in a God that did. So one God did and another did not, and since there is only one God someone is willingly believing in a God that is not that one God. Now this very elementary question touches on issues of divine time, divine oneness, divine immutability, divine decree, divine will and the list goes on. To say doctrine does not come into question when meddling with God’s Holy Scriptures is preposterous, not to mention it is the historical position to maintain the unimpaired integrity of the Scripture in a saint’s hand which you don’t, so now the doctrine of Bibliology is at stake according to the historical position.
Brother Blumer wrote,No, it is self-authenticating. It is not an action it is a state of being. The action is done by the Holy Spirit leading God’s people to either “He” because God said “He” or “Christ” because God said “Christ” and then the people of God submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit and accept the self-authenticating reading by submission.
How would “He” or “Christ” “self authenticate”?
Brother Blumer wrote,When a saint reads the word of God they are called by the Holy Spirit to receive it by faith without doubting any of it. So the believing community got to a point where they were reading the Geneva Bible and then the Bishops Bible came along. They held the Geneva to be the perfect word of God and gave the new comer a shot. Let me put it like this. I know what I believe and I believe it with my whole heart but that does prevent me from hearing Arminians, Theistic Evolutionists, and the like. I will give them a shot without ever wavering in my belief. In a similar manner, God’s people can hold the Geneva Bible while allowing the Bishops Bible into the conversation without ever wavering from the belief that the Bible in their hand is totally without error.
While this process is going on, even if it only takes days, the people would not have a text they are not certain is word perfect… and all your arguments on the necessity of total certainty for every word defeat your own position.
Brother Blumer wrote,As it appears in God’s word, Yes. Which one, you might say. My answer, all of them.
Do you believe this word? The.
Brother Blumer wrote concerning his use of emanation,No you don’t get it. Emanation in theology and philosophy is Plotinus and Gnostic like Hope and Change is President Obama in the world of present politics.
I’m pretty sure the Gnostics used the word “spirit” quite a lot, too!
Brother Blumer wrote,An idea can only be divinely pure as it is divinely given. If God did not give “He” then the idea drawn from it is not divine. To say the Bible reads “He” instead of “Christ” when the inspired word is “Christ” is to ascribe God’s name to something God did not say which is a form of blasphemy. Jeremiah preached against false prophets who did such things on several occasions.
If you replace “Christ” with “He” and “Him” enough times, you have a bit of a different impact. But the meaning is identical.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Here are a couple points that I hope will lend some clarity:
1.) Two things that are different cannot be the same in form or substance.
Example: A Poodle is a dog and a Pitbull is a dog but they are not the same. They are both dogs, have tails, four legs, and bark but they are not the same. God and God’s word say the same thing in form and substance, the NIV and ESV do not say the same thing in form and substance. One of them is a better translation of God’s word in English because they are not the same. It is incumbent upon God’s people to submit to and ascribe to the better as their sole rule of faith and practice.
2.) The Standard Sacred Text position is not a struggle simply for the KJB but to challenge others to simply hold to one text as their rule of faith and practice because Spirit of God has so lead you. Then stand for that text because you have been lead by the Spirit to hold it as the best English translation. Many others may be good but they are not the best, as yours is.
3.) God alone is a fit witness to Himself.
No man may say words God has not said and then ascribe those words to God. That is blasphemy. No man may write words that God has not given and then ascribe those words to God. That is also blasphemy. No man may willing say or write words that he does not know for certain are God’s words and then call them God’s words, for God’s words can only be known by faith and the object of faith must be certain. No man may preach words that he is not certain are God’s words and then call them God’s words.
4.) The movement of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven by empirical evidences.
All we know is that Jesus Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us (the believing community) into all truth. As a result the Spirit guides us to the words of God which are the revealed source of truth being truth. Therefore, the validator of the words of God is the Spirit of God and not the mere reason of men and MSS collation.
5.) MSS are not the same as the TR or NA 27.
Note: MSS are ten’s of thousand’s of papyri pieces and velum codices none of which agree perfectly. The NA 27 and the TR (historic Greek apographa) are compilations of the MSS. The historic reference to apographa is not to the multitude of MSS but to a single document of Greek and Hebrew.
6.) The position of a standard sacred apographa and a standard sacred translation for a given people group existed long before rise of modern textual theory and its subsequent theological formulations. Standing for the text of history, the KJB tradition, is not a new development. It was the tradition for which Rome burnt our forefathers at the stake for. It was the underlying Greek and Hebrew apographa that the Protestants took against the Roman Catholic Church and their Vulgate.
Side Note: The preface to the KJB and its use of “meanest” refers to the English translations preceding the KJB. They are not refereeing to any translation, but the translation tradition of the KJB.
7.) There is a fundamental difference between the evaluation of the process of a thing and an end result of that thing.
Example: There were refinements of the TR. There were refinements of the King James Bible we can see that as students of history. But the souls at the first iteration had no knowledge of the following iterations and therefore held their Bible as pure. Nor did the souls of the most recent iteration regard the last iterations as God’s word over the most recent iteration. but rather held the most recent as the pure word of God. Each time there was a new iteration the believing community by the leading of the Spirit moved to the better iteration or did not move if the “next” was not better.
8.) Could there yet be another iteration of the KJB?
Answer: It is possible. It would depend on the discovery of new evidence in the Greek and Hebrew. Then a translation would be made and we would then wait to see if the Holy Spirit lead His people to that “iteration”. Or the historic apographa (Masoretic Hebrew/TR) would be retranslated and then we wait to see if the Holy Spirit moved his people to that retranslation.
9.) How do we know a change in Bibles is of the Spirit or not?
Answer: If the change is consistent with Scripture. Is, easier to read, consistent with Scripture? Is, I need a Bible tailored to my needs, consistent with Scripture? Is, in seminary I was told this was the best Bible on the market, consistent with Scripture? Is, the reason why I am changing to Bible X is because the very words of the Bible demonstrate themselves to be the words of God by the leading of the Holy Spirit, consistent with Scripture? Is the change consistent with Scripture?
10.) Synecdochic consistency in Scripture teaches that the whole speaks for the parts and the parts for the whole. If the whole is without error then the parts are without error and if the parts are without error then the whole is without error. If the whole possesses error so then does the part and if the part then the whole.
11.) Not one of the linguists responsible for the NA 27 or the UBS 4th Rev maintain that even one word belongs in those N.T. Greek texts with absolute certainty. Every word possesses some degree of doubt. I have met Daniel Wallace and studied under Vern Poythress two professional linguists, if you ask them, “Do you think word X belongs in the Bible with absolute certainty?” the reply is, No. If the professionals are not sure how can you be?
12.) All scholars are just men, but some represent a system of thought held by a particular group of people. Turretin is one such man. Turretin’s Institutes represent the theological position of the believing community of his time. The overarching point in employing Turretin is to prove one simple point, the theology you believe now concerning the Bible is not the theology the orthodox believed then. Disregard men such as this. Throw them under the bus so to speak, but know that you have diverged without good reason, so quit your language of heresy and schism.
Questions:
Why is it wrong to believe that every jot and tittle of the Bible is preserved in a book if Jesus says so in Scripture?
Why is it wrong to believe the Bible is pure without qualification when the Bible says the Bible is pure without qualification?
Why is the Standard Sacred Text position called schismatic when the Standard Sacred Text position was mainstream long before the modern textual approach?
Why do we accept the healing of the blind and raising of the dead by faith, but not that every jot and tittle of the Bible is present in the Bible by faith?
Why do you guys filter every verse about the perfection and purity of the Bible through Ps. 119:89?
Why is your faith certain in salvation but not certain of purity in portions of revelation, the fount of salvific knowledge?
Why do you hold your salvation inviolate and not your Bible, the former precedes from the latter?
Why do you hold with certainty that no error has crept into Scripture concerning salvation?
Why do you hold your proof text(s) for the purity of the salvation message to be without error?
How do you know for certain that any word in the Bible is a word that belongs in the Bible?
How do scholars know for certain that any word in the Bible belongs in the Bible?
How do you know for certain that the Bible you hold is God’s word?
1.) Two things that are different cannot be the same in form or substance.
Example: A Poodle is a dog and a Pitbull is a dog but they are not the same. They are both dogs, have tails, four legs, and bark but they are not the same. God and God’s word say the same thing in form and substance, the NIV and ESV do not say the same thing in form and substance. One of them is a better translation of God’s word in English because they are not the same. It is incumbent upon God’s people to submit to and ascribe to the better as their sole rule of faith and practice.
2.) The Standard Sacred Text position is not a struggle simply for the KJB but to challenge others to simply hold to one text as their rule of faith and practice because Spirit of God has so lead you. Then stand for that text because you have been lead by the Spirit to hold it as the best English translation. Many others may be good but they are not the best, as yours is.
3.) God alone is a fit witness to Himself.
No man may say words God has not said and then ascribe those words to God. That is blasphemy. No man may write words that God has not given and then ascribe those words to God. That is also blasphemy. No man may willing say or write words that he does not know for certain are God’s words and then call them God’s words, for God’s words can only be known by faith and the object of faith must be certain. No man may preach words that he is not certain are God’s words and then call them God’s words.
4.) The movement of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven by empirical evidences.
All we know is that Jesus Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us (the believing community) into all truth. As a result the Spirit guides us to the words of God which are the revealed source of truth being truth. Therefore, the validator of the words of God is the Spirit of God and not the mere reason of men and MSS collation.
5.) MSS are not the same as the TR or NA 27.
Note: MSS are ten’s of thousand’s of papyri pieces and velum codices none of which agree perfectly. The NA 27 and the TR (historic Greek apographa) are compilations of the MSS. The historic reference to apographa is not to the multitude of MSS but to a single document of Greek and Hebrew.
6.) The position of a standard sacred apographa and a standard sacred translation for a given people group existed long before rise of modern textual theory and its subsequent theological formulations. Standing for the text of history, the KJB tradition, is not a new development. It was the tradition for which Rome burnt our forefathers at the stake for. It was the underlying Greek and Hebrew apographa that the Protestants took against the Roman Catholic Church and their Vulgate.
Side Note: The preface to the KJB and its use of “meanest” refers to the English translations preceding the KJB. They are not refereeing to any translation, but the translation tradition of the KJB.
7.) There is a fundamental difference between the evaluation of the process of a thing and an end result of that thing.
Example: There were refinements of the TR. There were refinements of the King James Bible we can see that as students of history. But the souls at the first iteration had no knowledge of the following iterations and therefore held their Bible as pure. Nor did the souls of the most recent iteration regard the last iterations as God’s word over the most recent iteration. but rather held the most recent as the pure word of God. Each time there was a new iteration the believing community by the leading of the Spirit moved to the better iteration or did not move if the “next” was not better.
8.) Could there yet be another iteration of the KJB?
Answer: It is possible. It would depend on the discovery of new evidence in the Greek and Hebrew. Then a translation would be made and we would then wait to see if the Holy Spirit lead His people to that “iteration”. Or the historic apographa (Masoretic Hebrew/TR) would be retranslated and then we wait to see if the Holy Spirit moved his people to that retranslation.
9.) How do we know a change in Bibles is of the Spirit or not?
Answer: If the change is consistent with Scripture. Is, easier to read, consistent with Scripture? Is, I need a Bible tailored to my needs, consistent with Scripture? Is, in seminary I was told this was the best Bible on the market, consistent with Scripture? Is, the reason why I am changing to Bible X is because the very words of the Bible demonstrate themselves to be the words of God by the leading of the Holy Spirit, consistent with Scripture? Is the change consistent with Scripture?
10.) Synecdochic consistency in Scripture teaches that the whole speaks for the parts and the parts for the whole. If the whole is without error then the parts are without error and if the parts are without error then the whole is without error. If the whole possesses error so then does the part and if the part then the whole.
11.) Not one of the linguists responsible for the NA 27 or the UBS 4th Rev maintain that even one word belongs in those N.T. Greek texts with absolute certainty. Every word possesses some degree of doubt. I have met Daniel Wallace and studied under Vern Poythress two professional linguists, if you ask them, “Do you think word X belongs in the Bible with absolute certainty?” the reply is, No. If the professionals are not sure how can you be?
12.) All scholars are just men, but some represent a system of thought held by a particular group of people. Turretin is one such man. Turretin’s Institutes represent the theological position of the believing community of his time. The overarching point in employing Turretin is to prove one simple point, the theology you believe now concerning the Bible is not the theology the orthodox believed then. Disregard men such as this. Throw them under the bus so to speak, but know that you have diverged without good reason, so quit your language of heresy and schism.
Questions:
Why is it wrong to believe that every jot and tittle of the Bible is preserved in a book if Jesus says so in Scripture?
Why is it wrong to believe the Bible is pure without qualification when the Bible says the Bible is pure without qualification?
Why is the Standard Sacred Text position called schismatic when the Standard Sacred Text position was mainstream long before the modern textual approach?
Why do we accept the healing of the blind and raising of the dead by faith, but not that every jot and tittle of the Bible is present in the Bible by faith?
Why do you guys filter every verse about the perfection and purity of the Bible through Ps. 119:89?
Why is your faith certain in salvation but not certain of purity in portions of revelation, the fount of salvific knowledge?
Why do you hold your salvation inviolate and not your Bible, the former precedes from the latter?
Why do you hold with certainty that no error has crept into Scripture concerning salvation?
Why do you hold your proof text(s) for the purity of the salvation message to be without error?
How do you know for certain that any word in the Bible is a word that belongs in the Bible?
How do scholars know for certain that any word in the Bible belongs in the Bible?
How do you know for certain that the Bible you hold is God’s word?
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] 3.) God alone is a fit witness to Himself.Peter,
No man may say words God has not said and then ascribe those words to God. That is blasphemy. No man may write words that God has not given and then ascribe those words to God. That is also blasphemy. No man may willing say or write words that he does not know for certain are God’s words and then call them God’s words, for God’s words can only be known by faith and the object of faith must be certain. No man may preach words that he is not certain are God’s words and then call them God’s words.
I think this is at the heart of the issue here. God did not say one single word in your KJ Bible. He spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek - but not a single word of English, either old or modern. By your standard here, you blaspheme when you ascribe those words to God.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] 4.) The movement of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven by empirical evidences.This question has been asked numerous times as well, but you have yet to answer it that I have seen. In what way does the Holy Spirit guide men to this conclusion? Where has the entire body ever been in complete agreement on this issue?
All we know is that Jesus Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us (the believing community) into all truth. As a result the Spirit guides us to the words of God which are the revealed source of truth being truth. Therefore, the validator of the words of God is the Spirit of God and not the mere reason of men and MSS collation.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
The bull terrier gene in me wants to hang on forever, but I’m not seeing much on “the other side” now that I haven’t already answered several times.
I guess one small point.
Theopneustos is indeed an adjective. However it is an adjective that describes an action. “God breathed.” Without an action that it references, the word has no meaning. So I think the argument from “adjective not action” is weak. It’s like saying “elect” is an adjective (which it is in several places) and therefore doesn’t refer to an act of choosing. (Friend of mine in seminary tried to make that argument. I used the same counter I’m using here). If I describe my chicken as “baked,” I’m used “baked” as adjective. But the action is still in view.
OK, one more… the “word” we are supposed to preach is the Scriptures God breathed. It does not refer specifically to copies or translations. But we fulfill the command by preaching from copies and translations because these are included in “word.”
If you picture it as a venn diagram, the biggest circle is “word” (in some contexts—including speaking), “Scripture” is a slightly smaller one entirely contained by “word.” Smaller yet is “copy” and “translation.” Not sure how those last two would relate to eachother, but how they relate to Scripture is clear: they are subsets. If you wanted to be really fussy, you could make the “translation” and “copy” circles bleed outside the Scripture boundary just a tiny bit because of the human elements in these.
Viewed from a distance, it would not be possible to tell they are not completely contained by “Scripture” and “word.”
One more more…
To Peter: there is nothing in the distinction between ‘manuscript’ and ‘text’ that in any way helps your case or weakens mine. There are differences in editions of the traditional text, just as there are differences in editions of the KJV.
That fact completely ruins your argument, because you’ve been stressing all along that we must have 100% certainty of every word else zero confidence in the Scriptures. If they are not completely pure textually, they cannot be an object of faith.
But if a single word has changed in the traditional text or any translation therefrom, that means those who thought their Bible was 100% pure before the change were mistaken. And their faith was misplaced. So which edition is the 100% pure one that can be a suitable object of faith? The support for this view doesn’t hold up.
I guess one small point.
Theopneustos is indeed an adjective. However it is an adjective that describes an action. “God breathed.” Without an action that it references, the word has no meaning. So I think the argument from “adjective not action” is weak. It’s like saying “elect” is an adjective (which it is in several places) and therefore doesn’t refer to an act of choosing. (Friend of mine in seminary tried to make that argument. I used the same counter I’m using here). If I describe my chicken as “baked,” I’m used “baked” as adjective. But the action is still in view.
OK, one more… the “word” we are supposed to preach is the Scriptures God breathed. It does not refer specifically to copies or translations. But we fulfill the command by preaching from copies and translations because these are included in “word.”
If you picture it as a venn diagram, the biggest circle is “word” (in some contexts—including speaking), “Scripture” is a slightly smaller one entirely contained by “word.” Smaller yet is “copy” and “translation.” Not sure how those last two would relate to eachother, but how they relate to Scripture is clear: they are subsets. If you wanted to be really fussy, you could make the “translation” and “copy” circles bleed outside the Scripture boundary just a tiny bit because of the human elements in these.
Viewed from a distance, it would not be possible to tell they are not completely contained by “Scripture” and “word.”
One more more…
To Peter: there is nothing in the distinction between ‘manuscript’ and ‘text’ that in any way helps your case or weakens mine. There are differences in editions of the traditional text, just as there are differences in editions of the KJV.
That fact completely ruins your argument, because you’ve been stressing all along that we must have 100% certainty of every word else zero confidence in the Scriptures. If they are not completely pure textually, they cannot be an object of faith.
But if a single word has changed in the traditional text or any translation therefrom, that means those who thought their Bible was 100% pure before the change were mistaken. And their faith was misplaced. So which edition is the 100% pure one that can be a suitable object of faith? The support for this view doesn’t hold up.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Why is it wrong to believe that every jot and tittle of the Bible is preserved in a book if Jesus says so in Scripture?Just save me the digging. Where does Jesus say that every jot and tittle is preserved a book?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Chip Van Emmerik]I think he finally answered this question:[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] 4.) The movement of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven by empirical evidences.This question has been asked numerous times as well, but you have yet to answer it that I have seen. In what way does the Holy Spirit guide men to this conclusion? Where has the entire body ever been in complete agreement on this issue?
All we know is that Jesus Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us (the believing community) into all truth. As a result the Spirit guides us to the words of God which are the revealed source of truth being truth. Therefore, the validator of the words of God is the Spirit of God and not the mere reason of men and MSS collation.
The problem with this, of course, is that Peter can’t split the difference. That’s why he can’t answer the question about what happens with the ‘believing community’ that disagrees with his SST. If you are a Christian, you *must* use the text he argues for in order to make his theological position coherent and non-contradictory. If you claim to be a Christian but don’t use his SST (whatever it is), then I guess you aren’t really a Christian at all - you certainly can’t be a part of the ‘believing community’ that he wants to use to support his theory that there is one true SST.
4.) The movement of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven by empirical evidences.
All we know is that Jesus Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us (the believing community) into all truth. As a result the Spirit guides us to the words of God which are the revealed source of truth being truth. Therefore, the validator of the words of God is the Spirit of God and not the mere reason of men and MSS collation.
Peter’s argument is a house of cards that looks very nice, but starts to fall apart if you examine it closely. It’s nothing more than a string of assertions that cannot be verified or supported without buying into the whole thing, hook, line and sinker, which is exactly what Peter has done. It takes more faith to believe in what he says than it does to believe that God has given us His Words, which are:
[NIV II Tim. 3:15-17] the Holy Scriptures, [and] are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Aaron Blumer] To Peter: there is nothing in the distinction between ‘manuscript’ and ‘text’ that in any way helps your case or weakens mine. There are differences in editions of the traditional text, just as there are differences in editions of the KJV.The Brandenburg view on this is as follows:
That fact completely ruins your argument, because you’ve been stressing all along that we must have 100% certainty of every word else zero confidence in the Scriptures. If they are not completely pure textually, they cannot be an object of faith.
But if a single word has changed in the traditional text or any translation therefrom, that means those who thought their Bible was 100% pure before the change were mistaken. And their faith was misplaced. So which edition is the 100% pure one that can be a suitable object of faith? The support for this view doesn’t hold up.
The true Greek text is that received/accepted by the church(es).
The KJV was received by the church(es) (not sure if he specifies an edition).
The true Greek text is that which lies behind the KJV (he specifies the 1881 Scriveners printed edition which was sort of reverse engineered).
That last point is interesting because it relieves him and others of having to point to a specific prior manuscript, even though he asserts it/they exist/s and would have been recognized by the church.
He would add that that text has always been the true text and generally available to be accepted by the church(es), even if in “some from this manuscript, some from that” fashion.
Killed it dead. :)
I’ll give three posts here, this one is brief to narrowly address two comments.
Either we define our theology based on the Scripture alone, or we don’t. If the Scriptures don’t say something, we shouldn’t claim that they would have in different circumstances. I don’t really think you thought this aspect of your comment through very well.
I’ll give three posts here, this one is brief to narrowly address two comments.
[Aaron Blumer] If there had been a major “double inspiration” style heresy in the early church, I have no doubt that the apostles would have made some of the distinctions we do today— in reference to the exclusive inspiration of the autographa.This opens the door wide open to multiple new and exciting heresies. “If the apostles had to deal with what we deal with, I’m SURE they would have said this….”
Either we define our theology based on the Scripture alone, or we don’t. If the Scriptures don’t say something, we shouldn’t claim that they would have in different circumstances. I don’t really think you thought this aspect of your comment through very well.
[Aaron Blumer] Given the confusion that abounds on this subject, I think those concerned for sound doctrine must take a firm stand against these errors. It’s certainly not a good idea to come as close to them as possible while simultaneously rejecting “KJVO.” Trying to carve out that micrometer-thin distinction can only breed confusion.This is a strange way to characterize what I’m saying. I’m saying our statements should sound like Christ and the apostles. You say I’m trying to sound like KJVO without being them. This is effectively conceding that KJVO sounds more like Christ and the apostles than their opponents do — and I agree. That is not to say that KJVO is right, it is to say that the way that their opponents are expressing themselves needs some real examination.
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt006.htm Bahnsen made this point, though he didn’t follow it through to its logical conclusion. He argued it logically, but there is sound Scriptural basis.
II Peter 1:21 doesn’t say “wrote”, it says “spake”. It is the words that matter, and that are inspired. The piece of paper which records them is an irrelevance, and the Scripture never talks about autographs. In fact, we have multiple cases which are somewhat problematic for “autograph-only inspiration”.
In fact, the “prophecy of Scripture” was the Word of God before it was ever written. It was as much the inspired Word of God, once He gave it to the prophet who spoke it, as it was after it was written. Inscripturation was the first act of preservation, so that it would be preserved to all generations (and yes, there is a connection between Psalm 119:89 and Psalm 119:90, or verse 90 would be horribly out of place in the Psalm, and verse 91 ties them together clearly).
1. The stone tables of the Law. Which copy was the inspired autograph? Was the second copy re-inspired, or was it “inspired preservation”, or what? No one cares. It is the words that matter. God gave and preserved them. But if you insist that the autographs alone are inspired, then you have to figure this one out. But nobody really believes this matters, because deep down everyone knows it is the words that matter, not the autographs.
2. Jeremiah 36. Which is the original autograph, the one in verses 1-4 or the one in 27-32? Is the second copy preservation, or re-inspiration? Unfortunately for the “autograph-only” view, the second copy contained both the words of the first copy (thus, it is a copy, not an autograph) and some additional words (thus, it is an autograph, not a copy). So which is it? How do you know Jeremiah didn’t have a photographic memory, and thus the second copy was simply providential preservation, with some additional newly-inspired material? Or is this autograph-only distinction simply rather silly, because it is the words that are inspired?
3. Proverbs 25:1. Which is the inspired original autograph, that which Solomon wrote, or that which Hezekiah’s men copied out? If the former, then Proverbs 25:1 isn’t inspired, I guess. But if the latter, then we really aren’t talking about an original autograph, are we? We’re talking about an inspired copy.
4. Psalm 18/II Samuel 22. Which is the inspired original autograph?
The whole point is that the Scriptural focus is on the words, not the original autographs. Always. And there are cases where even figuring out what the original autograph was is difficult, and no one cares that it is difficult, because no one really cares about the autographs. We rightly care about the words.
Two more questions. Who were the inspired writers of Jeremiah and Romans, Jeremiah and Paul, or Baruch and Tertius? Since it is the words that matter, we say that Jeremiah and Paul, who dictated them, were the human writers (and Peter said Paul wrote epistles), even though there is no certain proof that they ever even read the original autographs. In many cases we don’t even know who penned the original autographs, though we know who spoke the words. So what? It’s the words that matter.
The Scripture knows nothing of the mystical importance we place on “original autographs”. The words are inspired.
Off-topic? Not really. Autograph-only inspiration is a foundational assumption that is not taught in Scripture, is very problematic if we look at the whole of Scripture, and needs to be challenged. It needs solid proof, and the Scriptures contain none.
II Peter 1:21 doesn’t say “wrote”, it says “spake”. It is the words that matter, and that are inspired. The piece of paper which records them is an irrelevance, and the Scripture never talks about autographs. In fact, we have multiple cases which are somewhat problematic for “autograph-only inspiration”.
In fact, the “prophecy of Scripture” was the Word of God before it was ever written. It was as much the inspired Word of God, once He gave it to the prophet who spoke it, as it was after it was written. Inscripturation was the first act of preservation, so that it would be preserved to all generations (and yes, there is a connection between Psalm 119:89 and Psalm 119:90, or verse 90 would be horribly out of place in the Psalm, and verse 91 ties them together clearly).
1. The stone tables of the Law. Which copy was the inspired autograph? Was the second copy re-inspired, or was it “inspired preservation”, or what? No one cares. It is the words that matter. God gave and preserved them. But if you insist that the autographs alone are inspired, then you have to figure this one out. But nobody really believes this matters, because deep down everyone knows it is the words that matter, not the autographs.
2. Jeremiah 36. Which is the original autograph, the one in verses 1-4 or the one in 27-32? Is the second copy preservation, or re-inspiration? Unfortunately for the “autograph-only” view, the second copy contained both the words of the first copy (thus, it is a copy, not an autograph) and some additional words (thus, it is an autograph, not a copy). So which is it? How do you know Jeremiah didn’t have a photographic memory, and thus the second copy was simply providential preservation, with some additional newly-inspired material? Or is this autograph-only distinction simply rather silly, because it is the words that are inspired?
3. Proverbs 25:1. Which is the inspired original autograph, that which Solomon wrote, or that which Hezekiah’s men copied out? If the former, then Proverbs 25:1 isn’t inspired, I guess. But if the latter, then we really aren’t talking about an original autograph, are we? We’re talking about an inspired copy.
4. Psalm 18/II Samuel 22. Which is the inspired original autograph?
The whole point is that the Scriptural focus is on the words, not the original autographs. Always. And there are cases where even figuring out what the original autograph was is difficult, and no one cares that it is difficult, because no one really cares about the autographs. We rightly care about the words.
Two more questions. Who were the inspired writers of Jeremiah and Romans, Jeremiah and Paul, or Baruch and Tertius? Since it is the words that matter, we say that Jeremiah and Paul, who dictated them, were the human writers (and Peter said Paul wrote epistles), even though there is no certain proof that they ever even read the original autographs. In many cases we don’t even know who penned the original autographs, though we know who spoke the words. So what? It’s the words that matter.
The Scripture knows nothing of the mystical importance we place on “original autographs”. The words are inspired.
Off-topic? Not really. Autograph-only inspiration is a foundational assumption that is not taught in Scripture, is very problematic if we look at the whole of Scripture, and needs to be challenged. It needs solid proof, and the Scriptures contain none.
if someone wants to delete this, that’d be great
I realize I am challenging long-held assumptions for some of you when I say that theopneustos is A) not primarily talking about an act, but the divine nature of the Scriptures B) it does not apply only to the autographs and C) it applies to translations as well.
So for those who want to think it through, I’ll just ask some questions. If the Biblical meaning of theopneustos is only the original act of giving the Scriptures, and not a continuing quality of the Scriptures:
1. Why did the Westminster Confession use “immediate inspiration” instead of “inspiration” to describe that act? Why did the London Baptist and Philadelphia Baptist confessions follow in that? Why did they use an extra-biblical technical term to describe the act, if theopneustos / inspiration would have sufficed?
2. Why didn’t Paul use an aorist (or perfect) passive verb, if he wanted to just describe an “act” of inspiration?
3. Why does everyone translate II Tim. 3:16 with “is” instead of “was”, if theopneustos is only referring to the original act/autographs, rather than at least as much referring to a continuing quality?
4. Why do we create a false choice between “act” and “nature”? Theopneustos can have both an action and the continuing nature in view. To go back to Aaron’s example, “baked” chicken refers to an act, but it refers at least as much to the condition of the chicken now. It is focused not on time or place or heat of baking, but on what you have now — a cooked fowl. “Elect” Scripturally is at least as much focused on what we are now as a result of God’s choosing as it is on the act of choosing. In fact, in most cases the result of “elect” is much more in view than the act, when it is an adjective. Similarly with theopneustos, it implies an act but focuses on the result of the act.
5. Why do we assume a technical meaning for theopneustos that only applies to the autographs when everything else in the passage is eminently practical to Timothy’s ministry in Ephesus, and fully applies to Book-in-hand, whether copy or translation? Does context mean anything at all?
6. Why do we assume a meaning for theopneustos which is based solely on etymology, when the http://mindrenewers.com/2011/11/09/given-by-inspiration-the-connotation… connotations of the breath of God are so strong in Scripture? Why do we not consider that both the connotations and the context are pointing in the same direction, towards an emphasis on the divine nature which resides in the words of Scripture?
7. Who, before Warfield and A.A. Hodge in 1881, limited inspiration to the autographs? Was everyone wrong up until that date?
8. Why did http://mindrenewers.com/warfields-redefinition-of-inspiration/ Warfield and Hodge , in their first major article on this in 1881 which advocated autograph-only inspiration, admit that they were giving theopneustos a narrower definition than it had been given previously, and admit that their definition was more narrow than the Scriptural definition? Shouldn’t we go back to the Scriptural usage of the term?
Was Arthur Pink really heretical when he said the following, or does what he says match the Scriptural usage, and the entire strand of historical interpretation up until Warfield?
So for those who want to think it through, I’ll just ask some questions. If the Biblical meaning of theopneustos is only the original act of giving the Scriptures, and not a continuing quality of the Scriptures:
1. Why did the Westminster Confession use “immediate inspiration” instead of “inspiration” to describe that act? Why did the London Baptist and Philadelphia Baptist confessions follow in that? Why did they use an extra-biblical technical term to describe the act, if theopneustos / inspiration would have sufficed?
2. Why didn’t Paul use an aorist (or perfect) passive verb, if he wanted to just describe an “act” of inspiration?
3. Why does everyone translate II Tim. 3:16 with “is” instead of “was”, if theopneustos is only referring to the original act/autographs, rather than at least as much referring to a continuing quality?
4. Why do we create a false choice between “act” and “nature”? Theopneustos can have both an action and the continuing nature in view. To go back to Aaron’s example, “baked” chicken refers to an act, but it refers at least as much to the condition of the chicken now. It is focused not on time or place or heat of baking, but on what you have now — a cooked fowl. “Elect” Scripturally is at least as much focused on what we are now as a result of God’s choosing as it is on the act of choosing. In fact, in most cases the result of “elect” is much more in view than the act, when it is an adjective. Similarly with theopneustos, it implies an act but focuses on the result of the act.
5. Why do we assume a technical meaning for theopneustos that only applies to the autographs when everything else in the passage is eminently practical to Timothy’s ministry in Ephesus, and fully applies to Book-in-hand, whether copy or translation? Does context mean anything at all?
6. Why do we assume a meaning for theopneustos which is based solely on etymology, when the http://mindrenewers.com/2011/11/09/given-by-inspiration-the-connotation… connotations of the breath of God are so strong in Scripture? Why do we not consider that both the connotations and the context are pointing in the same direction, towards an emphasis on the divine nature which resides in the words of Scripture?
7. Who, before Warfield and A.A. Hodge in 1881, limited inspiration to the autographs? Was everyone wrong up until that date?
8. Why did http://mindrenewers.com/warfields-redefinition-of-inspiration/ Warfield and Hodge , in their first major article on this in 1881 which advocated autograph-only inspiration, admit that they were giving theopneustos a narrower definition than it had been given previously, and admit that their definition was more narrow than the Scriptural definition? Shouldn’t we go back to the Scriptural usage of the term?
Was Arthur Pink really heretical when he said the following, or does what he says match the Scriptural usage, and the entire strand of historical interpretation up until Warfield?
[Pink] The Holy Scriptures not only were “inspired of God,” but they are so now. They come as really and as truly God’s Word to us, as they did unto those to whom they were first addressed.Again, I don’t believe this is off-topic, but please correct me if I’m wrong. We create a false division between inspiration and preservation, because inspiration as Biblically used (and historically understood until 1881) is the divine quality of the preserved Word of God. This divine quality is not limited to the autographs, it extends even to any reasonably accurate translation, and this mis-placed limitation has contributed to a “disclaimer language” and a lack of confidence in preservation that has been much evidenced in this thread. In the passages I mentioned in the post above this, there is overlap between copies and autographs, between on the one hand immediate inspiration / inscripturation and on the other hand preservation. The distinction is not as great as we make it out to be.
[JG] This opens the door wide open to multiple new and exciting heresies. “If the apostles had to deal with what we deal with, I’m SURE they would have said this….”JG, I think you’re missing something here. I was offering a counterargument to your argument. You argued along the lines that “Jesus didn’t say ‘autographs,’ so we shouldn’t either.” My defense claimed, among other things, that Jesus was not facing the situation we are today.
Your response was that He was.
Then the part you quoted as allegedly killing sufficiency of Scripture was my response to your claim that Jesus did face this problem in His day… I said, no, He really wasn’t. If it were a major heresy of the era, He and the apostles would have said something about it.
This is not any kind of sufficiency killer. It’s just simple reasoning. It seems very likely that the epistles do address all the major theological and practical problems that were occurring in the churches at the time.
The fact remains that either there is a word perfect text—and we should teach that there is, or there is not a word perfect text—and we should teach that there is not.
a) The biblical evidence does not support the idea that we should expect the human part of copying, compiling to be word perfect.
b) The historical evidence is clear that there has not been a text that has gone unchanged (if it was word perfect at any point, it should not have changed after that)
As for sufficiency, nobody believes that the Bible directly addresses every doctrinal error that human beings will concoct until the eschaton. It’s about 3 MB of data. There are no verses that directly address a host of issues we face today. We have to apply principles. That doesn’t minimize sufficiency in the least.
There is no valid sufficiency argument for (a) claiming that the Bible teaches word-perfect text-compiling or (b) pretending we have a word-perfect text when when we know we don’t.
[JG] The whole point is that the Scriptural focus is on the words, not the original autographs. Always.Doesn’t work. There is no “Scripture” until what God has inspired is written down. For every single jot and tittle there is a moment when something God inspired reaches written form for the first time. This is what is meant by “autograph.”
There is no separating original words from original writings.
As for the examples you mentioned, these are not a problem. The act of inspiration applies to putting God’s words into writing and they are inspired up to and not beyond that act of writing.
Theopneustos, the adjective, cannot be separated from “God breathing,” the action. The action happens in time and is complete at a point in time.
Translations partake of the quality of theopneustos to the degree they are faithful to what God produced when He acted to inspire.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] [The only thing with which I can concur, really, in this whole statement I’ve quoted is the last sentence.[JG] The whole point is that the Scriptural focus is on the words, not the original autographs. Always.Doesn’t work. There is no “Scripture” until what God has inspired is written down. For every single jot and tittle there is a moment when something God inspired reaches written form for the first time. This is what is meant by “autograph.”
There is no separating original words from original writings.
As for the examples you mentioned, these are not a problem. The act of inspiration applies to putting God’s words into writing and they are inspired up to and not beyond that act of writing.
Theopneustos, the adjective, cannot be separated from “God breathing,” the action. The action happens in time and is complete at a point in time.
Translations partake of the quality of theopneustos to the degree they are faithful to what God produced when He acted to inspire.
II Peter 1:21 says “spoke”, not written. The words were fully the Word of God, and prophecy of Scripture, before they were written. God had determined that they were to be written, He gave them for that purpose, and they were the words of Scripture as surely when Paul or Jeremiah spoke them as they were when Tertius or Baruch inscribed them.
Of course there is “separating” original words from original writings, because original writings can be destroyed but the original words can and do live on.
You have stated that God’s words are not inspired beyond the act of writing. With this statement, if you still had an extant autograph, it would not be inspired, since the writing is now finished. Do you really mean that? Where in the world does the Scripture even begin to suggest such a thing? Who will agree with you on that? Is that at all what Paul was saying? Even Warfield didn’t go that far. You have made the Scriptures a completely dead book. Read http://www.gracegems.org/Pink/divine_inspiration.htm Pink if you can’t accept what I’m saying. This is scary stuff you are writing, Aaron.
I do not separate theopneustos from the action of God breathing at all. It is the result of God breathing. You are creating a false choice, a false dichotomy, between the act and the result.
Which copy of the stone tablets was the inspired original autograph? Which book in Jeremiah 36 was the inspired original autograph? You didn’t even answer, because you don’t care, and neither does anyone else. It’s an irrelevant question, because the autograph is irrelevant — it is just a vehicle.
If we had an original autograph and a perfectly accurate copy side by side, the one would have absolutely nothing the other did not have. The only thing an autograph has that any particular copy doesn’t have is a divine guarantee that the words are accurate. In either case, it is only the words that matter.
I think you’re not understanding what I’m saying.
The act of inspiration is what we call the Spirit’s moving of “men of God.”
2 Pe 1:21 NKJV 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
I probably did overstate my point slightly because I do believe that a prophet who spoke was also “inspired.” But it remains true that we do not have “Scripture” (graphe) until God inspires a writer, and—in the case of writing—the inspiring happens while a document is being produced and ends when that document has been produced.
So I distinguish between the quality of inspiration and the activity of inspiration.
Once the document is “done,” the act of inspiration is over. Of course the quality of “something that came by inspiration” continues.
Copies and translations have this quality to the degree they match the original document. (This is why Paul makes no distinction between “Scripture” and “copies and translations of Scripture.” There is rarely any need to distinguish between the two, though sometimes there is a very strong need.)
This is not a novel view of inspiration.
The act of inspiration is what we call the Spirit’s moving of “men of God.”
I probably did overstate my point slightly because I do believe that a prophet who spoke was also “inspired.” But it remains true that we do not have “Scripture” (graphe) until God inspires a writer, and—in the case of writing—the inspiring happens while a document is being produced and ends when that document has been produced.
So I distinguish between the quality of inspiration and the activity of inspiration.
Once the document is “done,” the act of inspiration is over. Of course the quality of “something that came by inspiration” continues.
Copies and translations have this quality to the degree they match the original document. (This is why Paul makes no distinction between “Scripture” and “copies and translations of Scripture.” There is rarely any need to distinguish between the two, though sometimes there is a very strong need.)
This is not a novel view of inspiration.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] This is not a novel view of inspiration.No, what you have stated now is not novel. Your prior statement was, in stating that the words were no longer “inspired”.
Where it deviates from Biblical usage, however, is in stealing the Biblical word theopneustos and turning it into only the act, which is assuredly not what it was saying in context. You are going along with Warfield (at least you are in eminent company) in his redefinition of theopneustos to what had previously been called “immediate inspiration”.
The act of inspiration is what we call the Spirit’s moving of “men of God.”I can accept that. You are replacing “immediate” with “act”. That’s fine. But that’s not what Paul is saying in II Timothy 3. He’s not saying “All Scripture is act of inspiration.” He’s saying all Scripture is, today, a result of an act — and thus, it has that quality. The whole reason for saying it is because he is describing the qualities of the Scriptures that Timothy has today. He’s not making an interesting historical observation. Otherwise, the statement in context is pointless, absolutely pointless.
It IS novel to say that it isn’t the words that matter, as you said in your last post. Bahnsen:
So the word-groups (this phrase will be used throughout to denote the text of a piece of literature in the strict sense of words in their given relations) of particular manuscripts, as opposed to the particular parchment and ink, are predicated as “God-breathed.” It would be confused to speak of “this parchment” or “this ink” as inspired or God-breathed, for how can a parchment sheet and volume of ink be exhaled by God?It is the words, and only the words, that matter. And the verses I cited certainly did show that the “autograph emphasis” is entirely misplaced.
You say “the inspiring… ends when that document has been produced.” Have you given any consideration at all to the Biblical connotations to the breath of God, in Genesis 2:7 and other passages, to the fact that pneuma is both Spirit and wind, and the use of those words in John 3, to the living and life-giving attributes of God’s Word as cited by Heb. 4:12 and I Peter 1:23, etc? Why has everyone, in multiple languages, until up to 40 years ago translated it “inspired” rather than “ex-spired”? I would never say “the inspiring ends when that document has been produced.” The inspiring lives on because of the Producer of the document — He made it a living Book when He breathed it. He breathed it into existence, and He breathed life into it. You’re only getting, at the most, half of what theopneustos is saying. It’s talking about that divine quality which you said continues — and that divine quality lives in a copy and a translation, too.
We agree on this. What you call the act of inspiration, what I (and the Westminster Divines, bringing the heavyweights in on my side :)) would call immediate inspiration, only happened with original autographs (though as I’ve demonstrated, in some cases that’s a little fuzzy). Copies were not immediately inspired, nor were translations. We’re agreed. We’re also agreed that the divine quality resulting from God’s giving of His Word exists in copies and translations, to the extent they reflect the words that God actually gave.
Where we strongly disagree is on whether theopneustos is referring to the act, the quality, or both. I say both, with emphasis on the quality but referring to the act by implication, due to the connotations of the breath of God, the evidence of historical interpretation of the text, but more than anything the context of the passage. You say it is only the act. I don’t actually see that you’ve given any evidence for this conclusion, or answered those questions I asked a couple of posts ago. The only reason I see you’ve given for saying it has to be only the act is because you say so….
Brother Van Emmerik
As I have said there is a distinction to be made between substantia doctrina and substanita verba. Both are contained in the Greek and Hebrew while only the former is contained in the translation. When I am speaking of what God said as being every jot and tittle or very pure I am speaking of the Greek and Hebrew and the English insofar as it agrees with that Greek and Hebrew. So you are right that God did not give the words of Scripture in English. I surmise that the place where we disagree is that I believe that every bit of the Greek and Hebrew behind the KJB is the equal to the inspired text given to the ancient penmen and you do not.
1.) The Scripture does not teach that the multitude of MSS = the canon of Scripture.
2.) Theologically, Canon is necessarily a rule and measure and as such denotes codification. Therefore, to argue that “there is nothing in the distinction between ‘manuscript’ and ‘text’ is to err significantly in the doctrine of Canon.
3.) Historically, the Protestants did not take the extant number of uncodified MSS against the codified Latin Vulgate of the Roman Catholic Church and then argue the superiority of the Greek and Hebrew as “the Bible is all there we just need to find it in all of the MSS.” line of reasoning. The Protestants took a codified apographa (Greek and Hebrew) against a codified Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.
Here is my process of reasoning:
Let us pretend that I am one of very few that have come into the possession of either Erasmus’ Greek NT or at another time the Geneva NT during the Renaissance or Reformation.
1.) God’s word says that God’s word is pure.
2.) My church receive Erasmus’ first edition.
3.) My church believes Erasmus’ edition is pure because the Bible says the Bible is pure.
4.) My church believes that every “jot and tittle” is there because the Bible says it is there.
5.) Later my church receives the next iteration of Erasmus’ first edition in a Greek NT.
6.) Let us assume for the sake of argument that the next iteration evidences itself to be a better representation of the self-authenticating words of Scripture by the leading of the Spirit.
7.) By the leading of the Spirit it is inevitable that my church will leave off of Erasmus’ first edition and will accept the next iteration because God’s people desire to obey the leading of the Holy Spirit. The church does not lead the church into all truth but rather the Holy Spirit.
8.) At which point my church believes the next iteration is pure because the Bible says the Bible is pure.
9.) And my church believes that every “jot and tittle” is there because the Bible says it is there.
10.) Replace “Erasmus’ first edition” and with “Geneva NT” and this in a very elementary example is how the believing community moved by faith from one iteration to the next.
11.) The belief that the Bible is 100% pure is held in the moment whether 1588 or 2011. So we can snipe at those in history because they held to prior iterations than the present one, but the fact remains that they read the Bible and believed that iteration to be pure down to every jot and tittle because the Bible said so. They submitted to the truth of Scripture as we should.
12.) The faith of those that believed their iteration was 100% pure was just as “misplaced” as those in the first century thought the Gospel of Matthew was the New Testament, because that was all they had or heard. And even then they knew from the Psalms that the NT they had ( the Gospel of Matthew) was very pure.
As I have said there is a distinction to be made between substantia doctrina and substanita verba. Both are contained in the Greek and Hebrew while only the former is contained in the translation. When I am speaking of what God said as being every jot and tittle or very pure I am speaking of the Greek and Hebrew and the English insofar as it agrees with that Greek and Hebrew. So you are right that God did not give the words of Scripture in English. I surmise that the place where we disagree is that I believe that every bit of the Greek and Hebrew behind the KJB is the equal to the inspired text given to the ancient penmen and you do not.
Brother Blumer wrote,The distinction between MSS and text is very important for several reasons.
To Peter: there is nothing in the distinction between ‘manuscript’ and ‘text’ that in any way helps your case or weakens mine. There are differences in editions of the traditional text, just as there are differences in editions of the KJV.
1.) The Scripture does not teach that the multitude of MSS = the canon of Scripture.
2.) Theologically, Canon is necessarily a rule and measure and as such denotes codification. Therefore, to argue that “there is nothing in the distinction between ‘manuscript’ and ‘text’ is to err significantly in the doctrine of Canon.
3.) Historically, the Protestants did not take the extant number of uncodified MSS against the codified Latin Vulgate of the Roman Catholic Church and then argue the superiority of the Greek and Hebrew as “the Bible is all there we just need to find it in all of the MSS.” line of reasoning. The Protestants took a codified apographa (Greek and Hebrew) against a codified Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.
Here is my process of reasoning:
Let us pretend that I am one of very few that have come into the possession of either Erasmus’ Greek NT or at another time the Geneva NT during the Renaissance or Reformation.
1.) God’s word says that God’s word is pure.
2.) My church receive Erasmus’ first edition.
3.) My church believes Erasmus’ edition is pure because the Bible says the Bible is pure.
4.) My church believes that every “jot and tittle” is there because the Bible says it is there.
5.) Later my church receives the next iteration of Erasmus’ first edition in a Greek NT.
6.) Let us assume for the sake of argument that the next iteration evidences itself to be a better representation of the self-authenticating words of Scripture by the leading of the Spirit.
7.) By the leading of the Spirit it is inevitable that my church will leave off of Erasmus’ first edition and will accept the next iteration because God’s people desire to obey the leading of the Holy Spirit. The church does not lead the church into all truth but rather the Holy Spirit.
8.) At which point my church believes the next iteration is pure because the Bible says the Bible is pure.
9.) And my church believes that every “jot and tittle” is there because the Bible says it is there.
10.) Replace “Erasmus’ first edition” and with “Geneva NT” and this in a very elementary example is how the believing community moved by faith from one iteration to the next.
11.) The belief that the Bible is 100% pure is held in the moment whether 1588 or 2011. So we can snipe at those in history because they held to prior iterations than the present one, but the fact remains that they read the Bible and believed that iteration to be pure down to every jot and tittle because the Bible said so. They submitted to the truth of Scripture as we should.
12.) The faith of those that believed their iteration was 100% pure was just as “misplaced” as those in the first century thought the Gospel of Matthew was the New Testament, because that was all they had or heard. And even then they knew from the Psalms that the NT they had ( the Gospel of Matthew) was very pure.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Brother Bean wroteMatthew 5:17-18 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Where does Jesus say that every jot and tittle is preserved a book?
I believe that verse 17 is speaking of the law (a real book) and the prophets (a real book) and that Christ’s combining of these two speaks of the entire OT (a book). Then Christ speaking in verse 18 says that so long as there is literal real creation (heaven and earth which now exists) not one jot or one tittle will pass from the real book mentioned in verse 17 until everything in the real book of the OT is fulfilled which has yet to come to pass seeing that things treated last (Eschatology) still remain.
Reference to the law is to the real record of the law on earth. Reference to the prophets is to the real recorded prophets on earth. Reference to heaven and earth is to real heaven and earth. Reference to “the law” in “no wise pass from the law” regards the real record of the law on earth. Reference to “fulfill” is in regard to fulfillment of the real recorded OT. Therefore I take “jot and tittle” to mean real jots and tittles.
Brother JayC wrote concerning one of my posts,One thing that happens is that the believing community discusses it on SI when the believing community disagrees with the Standard Sacred Text position. Of course you know, there are times when parts of the believing community do not submit to Scripture. Some saints resist baptism which is the first act of obedience after salvation, perhaps out of a lack of spiritual maturity. Some saints get divorced even when the Bible does not support their action. Some saints forsake the assembly for a time once again perhaps out of a lack of spiritual maturity or perhaps resentment of some sort. Some saints lie and cheat. Some saints bring Rock n Roll into their churches. Some saints commit fornication or adultery.
That’s why he can’t answer the question about what happens with the ‘believing community’ that disagrees with his SST.
Given this truth I do not need to make a caveat when saying the believing community stands against divorce, fornication, and lying even though some in its midst do such things. In like manner I should need to make a caveat for the exception which did not hold to the iteration of the believing community at a given time or for the nature of process which in every case was hardly more than a generation. Even then the differences between saints on a particular iteration is more like the growing/maturing of a saint in obedience like in the case of the saint who has not yet baptized.
The believing community as it traversed over these Greek texts and English translations was in a unique situation in that all that existed was the Bible of Rome - the Latin Vulgate. The believing community was on a terribly steep learning curve. There were no English Bibles and the Greek was severely limited until principle work of Erasmus brought it from the Eastern Church. We now have had the English Bible for nearly 500 years and there is one tradition of Greek/Hebrew apographa and English translation that has remained through those years which has never been the possession of the Ecclesiastical or Academic elites but rather has been the possession of the believing community by the leading of the Holy Spirit and that tradition is the King James Bible tradition.
Brother Blumer wrote,Sure there is, “thy word is settled in heaven” in the mind of God, right? Here the original words are separate from the original writing. It is about the words and not so much the pen and paper according to you, so why are you arguing this.
There is no “Scripture” until what God has inspired is written down. For every single jot and tittle there is a moment when something God inspired reaches written form for the first time. This is what is meant by “autograph.”
There is no separating original words from original writings.
Brother Blumer, why is it ok according to you for me to say, “The Bible in my hand has its corruptions but God has promised that His word is pure as it is settled in Heaven.” but I cannot say, “The message of salvation has its corruptions but God has promised that His message is pure as it is settled in Heaven.”? Both use Ps. 119:89 as their basis of certainty and both have guaranteed purity of the text and message.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[JG] No, what you have stated now is not novel. Your prior statement was, in stating that the words were no longer “inspired”.I never said “no longer inspired.”
I said “they are inspired up to and not beyond that act of writing.” This refers to the act, not the quality. In other words, God breathed out the Scriptures and when they were done, He was no longer breathing them out.
[JG]… in stealing the Biblical word theopneustos and turning it into only the act, which is assuredly not what it was saying in context.I just want to be understood on these points. I think they have very little relevance to the traditional text notion Peter’s been defending.
But I don’t limit theopneustos to the act. I just refrain from separating it from the act. Theopneustos is “the quality of having been breathed out by God.”
I can’t remember now what any of this has to do with claiming that the traditional text is word perfect or that there is a group of special people (“the believing community insofar as it agrees with me”) who can produce a word perfect text… even though the text they claim is word-perfect has undergone several changes in wording.
[JG]…describing the qualities of the Scriptures that Timothy has today. He’s not making an interesting historical observation. Otherwise, the statement in context is pointless, absolutely pointless.The fact that Timothy’s Bible could rightfully claim the quality of theopneustos isn’t in dispute. Every translation and copy is “inspired” (has that quality) to the degree that it is faithful to what God “inspired” (the act). And, to repeat, there is rarely any reason to distinguish copy/translation from “original words” or “original documents” (the argument holds either way).
But when people start to claim that a particular text or translation has an exclusive claim to “inspiration,” this is an error that has to refuted. And this is why most modern statements include the “autographa” reference… and why it’s good that they do.
[JG] It IS novel to say that it isn’t the words that matter, as you said in your last post.I don’t know how you’re getting that.
Note the difference between these two statements:
Statement A: There is no point in trying to separate “original words” from “original documents.” We don’t have “Scripture” until the words are written down.
Statement B: The words don’t matter.
[JG] You say “the inspiring… ends when that document has been produced.” Have you given any consideration at all to the Biblical connotations to the breath of God, in Genesis 2:7 and other passages, to the fact that pneuma is both Spirit and wind, and the use of those words in John 3, to the living and life-giving attributes of God’s Word as cited by Heb. 4:12 and I Peter 1:23, etc? Why has everyone, in multiple languages, until up to 40 years ago translated it “inspired” rather than “ex-spired”? I would never say “the inspiring ends when that document has been produced.” The inspiring lives on….I really hope you’re just equivocating here, because that would be much better than inventing a strange new theory of inspiration. “Inspiring lives on”… what does that mean? God is still breathing out the Scriptures?
If we maintain that we have all of the Scriptures, “the inspiring” is most certainly not living on.
The “inspired” quality does, of course. I’ve never been the least bit interested in denying that.
It boggles my mind why anyone would want to use this kind of confusing language about inspiration… and then turn around and affirm the Westminster Divines…
[JG] What you call the act of inspiration, what I (and the Westminster Divines, bringing the heavyweights in on my side …would call immediate inspiration, only happened with original autographs (though as I’ve demonstrated, in some cases that’s a little fuzzy). Copies were not immediately inspired, nor were translations. We’re agreed. We’re also agreed that the divine quality resulting from God’s giving of His Word exists in copies and translations, to the extent they reflect the words that God actually gave.It appears that we disagree about nothing, then…. except that you don’t seem to think people who believe this should say so?
[JG] Where we strongly disagree is on whether theopneustos is referring to the act, the quality, or both. I say both,So do I.
You’ve granted that God only breathed out the original words and that these words were written down under inspiration only once.
So why would someone who believes that want to find fault with openly taking that view by saying “autographs” in doctrinal statements? The only difference I can see is that these statements express the doctrine succinctly, while your expression is a tangle of confusion…. “We believe in the one-time inspiration of the autographa but don’t believe anybody should just come out and say that… because if they say it, even once, it’s an unbiblical emphasis on uncertainty… and it’s much better to throw around confusion-breeding statements like ‘the inspiring lives on.’”
I don’t get it.
I think Peter’s view is very weak and self contradictory, but I can at least understand why he holds it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Peter] 1.) God’s word says that God’s word is pure.Peter, do you really not not see how self-contradictory this view is?
2.) My church receive Erasmus’ first edition.
3.) My church believes Erasmus’ edition is pure because the Bible says the Bible is pure.
4.) My church believes that every “jot and tittle” is there because the Bible says it is there.
5.) Later my church receives the next iteration of Erasmus’ first edition in a Greek NT.
6.) Let us assume for the sake of argument that the next iteration evidences itself to be a better representation of the self-authenticating words of Scripture by the leading of the Spirit.
7.) By the leading of the Spirit it is inevitable that my church will leave off of Erasmus’ first edition and will accept the next iteration because God’s people desire to obey the leading of the Holy Spirit. The church does not lead the church into all truth but rather the Holy Spirit.
In your scenario, if the church believed at #3 that Erasmus’ edition1 was “very pure” (by your definition, “containing every single word God originally inspired”) it was mistaken, wrong, in error. It’s text could not be word perfect at #3 and still be word perfect at #7.
No number of references to self authentication and Holy Spirit and believing community and text vs. MS and Turretin and historical position and Westcott/Hort and MSTC or anything else can fix that.
Your view is self-refuting… so I really should stop refuting it, shouldn’t I? That would be the sensible thing to do.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.]But HOW do you know that the KJB tradition is the one that God wants us to follow?Brother JayC wrote concerning one of my posts,One thing that happens is that the believing community discusses it on SI when the believing community disagrees with the Standard Sacred Text position. Of course you know, there are times when parts of the believing community do not submit to Scripture. Some saints resist baptism which is the first act of obedience after salvation, perhaps out of a lack of spiritual maturity. Some saints get divorced even when the Bible does not support their action. Some saints forsake the assembly for a time once again perhaps out of a lack of spiritual maturity or perhaps resentment of some sort. Some saints lie and cheat. Some saints bring Rock n Roll into their churches. Some saints commit fornication or adultery.
That’s why he can’t answer the question about what happens with the ‘believing community’ that disagrees with his SST.
Given this truth I do not need to make a caveat when saying the believing community stands against divorce, fornication, and lying even though some in its midst do such things. In like manner I should need to make a caveat for the exception which did not hold to the iteration of the believing community at a given time or for the nature of process which in every case was hardly more than a generation. Even then the differences between saints on a particular iteration is more like the growing/maturing of a saint in obedience like in the case of the saint who has not yet baptized.
The believing community as it traversed over these Greek texts and English translations was in a unique situation in that all that existed was the Bible of Rome - the Latin Vulgate. The believing community was on a terribly steep learning curve. There were no English Bibles and the Greek was severely limited until principle work of Erasmus brought it from the Eastern Church. We now have had the English Bible for nearly 500 years and there is one tradition of Greek/Hebrew apographa and English translation that has remained through those years which has never been the possession of the Ecclesiastical or Academic elites but rather has been the possession of the believing community by the leading of the Holy Spirit and that tradition is the King James Bible tradition.
You keep going back to “the believing community says so”. That’s not a good enough reason if you are going to posit that God is divinely preserving the texts that underlie one translation. That’s why my initial questions ( http://sharperiron.org/comment/36596#comment-36596] Post #67 ) were:
[emphasis added] 1. How do you know that the KJB is the ‘final product’ or ‘conclusion’ of these works?You’ve made a bunch of assertions that this is what happened, but you cannot substantiate those assertions, and you cannot provide any kind of leadership on how your theory will work in the future, which is why I keep asking about how we recognize which version is best in 1,000 years, or where there is any kind of church historian (other than Turretin and Hoornbeeck, whom you’ve already referenced) that develops this theory. Instead we get verbose non-answers like “God will make it known” or “We can’t question God’s actions in preserving the texts and how/why He does what he does”. Granted, those aren’t direct quotes of yours, but that’s ultimately what it boils down to, and that’s why I am concerned about this topic and won’t stop posting in this thread.
2. By what means do we know that this absolutely the work of God and not the work of Satan, trying to spread lies and deceit about the revelation of one final and authoritative text family?
3. By what means will we ever know of a new divine act that gives us an updated language for the KJB? Can such a thing ever happen?
4. How can we know God’s revelation in another 500 years?
I don’t claim that I have any kind of perfect understanding of how this all works, but I’m a whole lot more comfortable with saying “God has spoken, it’s contained in the Bible, and we can trust and rely on the translations that we have” - because at the end of the day, only God knows what the originals said. My curiosity for how the process worked does not give me liberty to start saying what and how God did things. That’s God’s prerogative, not mine. My only option is to obey His commands to teach and make disciples, which is why I wrote http://sharperiron.org/comment/38851#comment-38851] post #258 .
My personal opinion is that God destroyed the originals, just like he did the bronze serpent (2 Kings 18:4), in order to keep us from being more obsessed with them than we are about God. But that doesn’t shake my faith in the Word one bit.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Aaron Blumer]Thank you for clarifying. To an extent we’ve been talking at cross purposes.
I never said “no longer inspired.”
I said “they are inspired up to and not beyond that act of writing.” This refers to the act, not the quality. In other words, God breathed out the Scriptures and when they were done, He was no longer breathing them out.
The statement was, “The act of inspiration applies to putting God’s words into writing and they are inspired up to and not beyond that act of writing.” In case you care, the confusion came from saying “they are” about the words, giving the impression you were talking about the present quality of the words rather than the historical act.
[Aaron Blumer]Excellent. You did previously say that Paul didn’t apply theopneustos to Timothy’s Bible. So you then agree after all that theopneustos is not limited to the autographs? Much better.[JG]… in stealing the Biblical word theopneustos and turning it into only the act, which is assuredly not what it was saying in context.I just want to be understood on these points. I think they have very little relevance to the traditional text notion Peter’s been defending.
But I don’t limit theopneustos to the act. I just refrain from separating it from the act. Theopneustos is “the quality of having been breathed out by God.”
The fact that Timothy’s Bible could rightfully claim the quality of theopneustos isn’t in dispute. Every translation and copy is “inspired” (has that quality) to the degree that it is faithful to what God “inspired” (the act).
You aren’t correct that it “isn’t in dispute,” though. Warfield and many others deny it. Several of my professors at BJU denied it. “You can’t apply theopneustos to a translation.” Dr. Combs at Detroit denied it on these forums years ago, before the crash. When you denied that Paul applied it to Timothy’s Bible, I thought you were following that line of thinking. I understand entirely why they say what they say, because they are focused on the act — but theopneustos is much more than the act.
[Aaron Blumer]It’s pretty simple how I got that. This one is fun. :) First, look back at the post. You quoted my statement: “The whole point is that the Scriptural focus is on the words, not the original autographs. Always.” That statement of mine was made in the context of arguing that it is the words that matter, not the piece of paper. You’re response was, “Doesn’t work.”[JG] It IS novel to say that it isn’t the words that matter, as you said in your last post.I don’t know how you’re getting that.
Note the difference between these two statements:
Statement A: There is no point in trying to separate “original words” from “original documents.” We don’t have “Scripture” until the words are written down.
Statement B: The words don’t matter.
Now, look what you’ve done here. To quote my friend Aaron, “note the difference between these two statements”:
Statement A: It is novel to say that it isn’t the words that matter. (this was me)
Statement B: The words don’t matter. (this is your characterization of those words :))
We’re obviously talking past each other here to an extent. So trying to cut through it, I’ll restate more fully.
It is only the words that matter. Those words were inspired “prophecy of Scripture” when Jeremiah “spoke” (II Peter 1:21) each word a moment before Baruch got it inscribed on the scroll. The words were prophecy of Scripture once they were written on the scroll, and they still were when the scroll was burned. They were still inspired prophecy of Scripture when they existed on no scroll at all, but God had decreed that they would be preserved and re-inscripturated. They hadn’t ceased to be inspired, to be prophecy, to be God’s Word, to be part of Scripture, they had just temporarily ceased to be extantly written, and God was going to deal with that in short order. They still were inspired when Jeremiah spoke them again word for word, in the moment before Baruch wrote, and still inspired after he wrote. And they were still inspired prophecy of Scripture when this second scroll also ceased to exist, and they had been copied onto other manuscripts. Inscripturation on the scroll did not make them any more the Word of God, any more inspired, or any more prophecy of Scripture than they were in the moments before they were written down, or in the time between destruction of the scroll and re=inscripturation. Nor does recording them on any other media, paper or otherwise, make any difference. If they are the words God gave, they are fully inspired because they are the words God gave. It doesn’t matter on which piece of paper they appear. It is the words that matter.
If you don’t agree with that, if you say “Doesn’t work,” it is indeed novel. If you do agree, then we’ve just been talking past each other.
The “how” doesn’t matter much at all. Did God write it with His finger, or enable Moses to accurately inscribe on a scroll what He had written in stone with His finger, or give an angel a message to carry, or directly dictate it, or sovereignly mold a man’s writing style and life experiences to fit him to write God’s Word? Yes, yes, and yes — all of the above, and more. Maybe He gave Jeremiah a photographic memory so he could recreate the original scroll perfectly, or maybe He miraculously and temporarily gave him perfect recall — “inspired re-inscripturation”. How exactly can we even talk about God physically writing on stone tablets? How knows or cares how it happened? The Scripture gives the “how” very, very little focus. Talking about autographs is focused on “how”. The Scriptures are without fail interested in the “what”, not the “how”, the product, the words, which are God’s.
[Aaron Blumer]I probably should not have used that terminology, because it is obvious that you either haven’t read what I linked to, or didn’t really follow it. If you had, even if you didn’t agree, you’d have approached this conversation differently. So that terminology only caused confusion. I’m not going to recreate everything here, but I’ll give a little bit.[JG] I would never say “the inspiring ends when that document has been produced.” The inspiring lives on….I really hope you’re just equivocating here, because that would be much better than inventing a strange new theory of inspiration. “Inspiring lives on”… what does that mean? God is still breathing out the Scriptures?
The word is derived from pneo. So is pneuma (wind, spirit, breath). God’s breath is the breath of life life (Gen 2:7, etc) and man goes on breathing. God’s pneuma/Pneuma gives spiritual life (John 3, where we have a play on words with wind/Spirit, both are pneuma, but so is breath). Jesus’ words are “pneuma and life” (John 6:63). The Word of God is living (Heb. 4:12) — it has been in-breathed, breathed into by God. Living, it is also life-giving (I Peter 1:23, and other passages). The Scriptures were breathed into existence by God, and He breathed life into them. Thus, they are the living breath of God, which breathes spiritual life into us. They are the living conduit, if you will, by which the life-giving pneuma (breath) of God is conveyed to us that we might live. Everything I have stated there is manifestly Biblical, not a strange new theory. (I’m not denying the personhood of the pneuma, Holy Spirit, just to be clear. I’m saying that the Scriptures not only were made by the pneuma (breath) of God, but they also contain and impart the life-giving breath of God. Pneuma means breath as well as referring to the Holy Spirit.)
Historically, this is what people understood theopneustos to mean. This is why translations from the Peshitta and Vulgate on down, including all English translations until the NIV, used “in-spired” (breathed into) instead of “ex-spired” (breathed out). It is, as near as I can tell, what was generally believed until Warfield redefined theopneustos. (I’ve stated that several times, and people who have had their thinking on inspiration framed largely by Warfield never seem to give it a thought. Interesting. You would think people would either investigate or refute that statement. Since Warfield said his definition wasn’t the Biblical usage, you’d think people who have drunk at his well would want to re-think their understanding of the word.)
Thus, “the inspiring goes on” in the sense that the Scriptures are and continue to be the conduit of the life-giving breath of God which is given to us. What God started when He breathed into the Scriptures hasn’t stopped.
I’m arguing that theopneustos means in-spiration. You are advocating that it means ex-spiration, that the Scriptures are special because they were breathed out by God, but that action of God really finished when He completed the act of giving them. My view is that God breathed into the Scriptures and they still breathe the breath of God, living and life-giving, and that this is the force of the word as it describes the divine nature/quality of the Scriptures. My view is very ancient, and has excellent Biblical support in the context and the connotations of pneo. Yours is approximately 130 years old, and I can’t see that anyone has ever provided any sound exegetical or linguistic reasons for the change. Warfield shifted for theological purposes without giving any real exegetical reason for doing so.
Not persuaded? I’m not surprised. We’ve been taught that Warfield is the gold standard on inspiration. FWIW, my uncle, who teaches theology in a Reformed seminary, told me not long ago, “Warfield is great on everything — except inspiration.” Pink didn’t buy it, either. It’s not just one wacky guy, nor is it only KJVOers, who are saying, “Wait a minute!”
[Aaron Blumer]Now we’ll get back to why I got involved in this thread in the first place. We agree on manuscript copies apparently, but people reading your words wouldn’t think so. They would think that manuscript copies aren’t inspired, because you use the Biblical term (inspiration) to describe the act, when it means more than that. Now that I pushed on it, you are talking about the “act of inspiration”, which certainly helps. “Immediate inspiration” was used historically. I somewhat prefer “inspired inscripturation”, because that puts the focus on the process of writing more sharply, but whatever….[JG] What you call the act of inspiration, what I (and the Westminster Divines, bringing the heavyweights in on my side …would call immediate inspiration, only happened with original autographs (though as I’ve demonstrated, in some cases that’s a little fuzzy). Copies were not immediately inspired, nor were translations. We’re agreed. We’re also agreed that the divine quality resulting from God’s giving of His Word exists in copies and translations, to the extent they reflect the words that God actually gave.It appears that we disagree about nothing, then…. except that you don’t seem to think people who believe this should say so?
But our real disagreement is on focus. You are focused on manuscripts, but I focus on text, on words. The words are inspired. Peter focuses on text. So do the Scriptures. Every statement in the Scriptures about their nature focuses on the text, the words, not on particular manuscripts. Manuscripts have errors, but God’s words are not manuscripts — those are only vehicles. Peter isn’t arguing (I don’t think he is, anyway) that any one manuscript is perfect, nor am I, nor do the Scriptures — the Scriptural writers aren’t interested in that. They are interested in the text, the words.
I fully understand the difficulty, but when we focus on manuscripts, we focus on difficulties, and that is not what the Scriptures do. They focus on the certainty and authority of the text. Everyone knows a manuscript can be inaccurate. If we focus on words, we don’t have to make disclaimers. The words God gave are inspired, living, inerrant, divine, authoritative, sure, pure, etc. And every Scriptural statement about them operates under the assumption that we have those words. It doesn’t say every (or any) manuscript is perfect, but that’s not relevant to the apostolic writers, or to Christ. They didn’t need to go there for some reason, not once, but we do for some reason. It was as much a part of reality back then as it is now. There were manuscript differences back then (not all the Dead Sea Scrolls are entirely in agreement with each other, for instance,), and obviously there were translational issues. They weren’t bothered, because God had given His Word and He was preserving it and ensuring that His people had it, so they could speak of it with certainty. The divine nature that He had imparted to His Word was even present in translations, so they didn’t even have to make disclaimers there (though at times they certainly departed from the LXX when quoting the OT).
The surety with which Christ and the apostles spoke of the Scriptures only supports Peter’s argument for the Scriptural doctrine of perfect preservation (if not every aspect of Peter’s application of it). Anyone reading the statements of Christ and the apostles, of KJVOers, and of KJVO opponents would think that the first two groups are on the same page. That is because KJVO opponents have too often wrongly conceded the point. Perfect preservation is not a KJVO doctrine, even though they claim it for their own and their opponents cede it to them. It is a Biblical doctrine. One does not have to accept the KJVO application of the doctrine to accept the doctrine.
Furthermore, Peter is 100% correct that the Scriptures are self-attesting, and that therefore the first place to look, when there is any question of the correct text, is to what the believing community accepts as Scripture. The principles of modern textual criticism are not found in Scripture, and some of them are simply ludicrous to apply to Scripture, while the Bible clearly teaches of self-attestation and/or the attestation of the Spirit to the Word.
What Peter hasn’t engaged with as well as I would like is the difficulty, at times, of determining in some few cases exactly what the believing community has attested. There are TR differences. How are you going to decide which is the reading which the believing community has attested? Which TR is right? What if the newest TR was accepted by the believing community because it got 10 out of 12 changes right, rather than all 12? There are differences between the majority text and the TR. Why do we decide for the TR when the believing community, before the TR, appeared to be attesting the majority text? There are some cases where the “majority” is hard to determine. What is the attestation of the believing community in such a case? Etc.
I don’t think it is always quite so easy. I’m glad you and others have raised the issue. I’d like to see it answered. I am persuaded (have been for years) that he is correct on the theological questions of preservation and attestation, and that those theological answers resolve 95% or more of disputed readings. I’m not sure he’s answered practically how we apply that theological answer when the voice of the believing community is somewhat divided.
Certainly, believers can be mistaken, and the widespread acceptance of a naturalistic view of text transmission and textual criticism has badly tainted the response of the believing community in the last 100 years. I am very strongly on the traditional text side of things, but I’m not persuaded that it is quite as simple or straightforward as Peter is saying.
My main point still stands, however. His statements sound like the Scriptural statements of certainty about text (not manuscripts, text). Yours don’t. In part, that is because the way you write on this topic has been influenced by an “autograph-only” view of inspiration which is not Biblical. That’s why I raised the topic. I’m glad, in this latest posting of yours talking about the quality of inspiration, you’ve made it clear that you haven’t fully bought into that view, but I can see its influence in a lot of things you’ve said. In part, I suspect, it is because you are not entirely in tune with the way Christ and the apostles saw the doctrine of preservation.
In any event, thank you for the discussion.
Just today I was reading a http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF . I was interested to read the follow paragraph which is identical in both confessions:
8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.Notice the highlighted portion. It seems to distinguish between “immediate inspir[ation] ” of the original writings and the subsequent preservation and translation of God’s Word.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
That’s exactly correct. They didn’t limit “inspiration” (a Scriptural term) to the autographs. They used a technical term, “immediate inspiration”, to refer to the act of inspiration.
But they also believed in perfect preservation (“kept pure”), though they did not focus so much on exactly how that was done.
But they also believed in perfect preservation (“kept pure”), though they did not focus so much on exactly how that was done.
OK, but I’m still not sure how that differs from Aaron’s view or Warfield’s view.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Brother Blumer wrote,II Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture”, but in the historic context of the verse Paul’s direct referent is the O.T. of which only copies existed. II Timothy is arguably the last of Paul’s epistles, which means the inspired text of Matthew, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians are all inspired Scripture in circulation within the believing community, but certainly not possessed and codified by the whole believing community in the ANE.
Peter, do you really not see how self-contradictory this view is?…Your view is self-refuting… so I really should stop refuting it, shouldn’t I? That would be the sensible thing to do.
Would it have been wrong for an ancient Christian who only had Romans and the O.T. to say, My copy of God’s word is pure and without error because the Bible says so, even after he received Ephesians 50 years later? No, of course not. Or would you call that soul’s faith into question as well? Why then is it wrong for a 15th century saint to say that his Greek and Hebrew are pure and without error even after 10 years when he comes to trust that next iteration? It wouldn’t be.
So then you say, see the believing community existed without every word and still said their Bibles were pure and without error. I agree. The difference is this. Once the 66 book canon had been compiled the ancient saint could no longer hold that his O.T. + Matthew was all of the Bible. His Bible now by definition was incomplete and he must accept the other 26 books of the NT as Scripture. So also once the next iteration of the Greek N.T. manifests itself to be the self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting word of God, more so than the previous then history shows that in a generation’s time or less the previous iteration has been laid aside and the next had been incorporated into the religious practices of Protestantism.
Side Note 1:So now a question, Did modern text critical theory begin with the text of the believing community as a basis from which to continue the traditional text iterations or did they begin from scratch and reevaluate each MS? The answer is the latter. In fact, Griesbach who was most revered by W&H, disparaged the orthodox text and Hort went so far as to call the text of the believing community vile.
Side Note 2: So I conclude that what modern text critical theory did was take us backward from a codified standard sacred text to a multitude of Greek and English text none of which are considered to be codified let alone standard by the linguists or the believing community. In addition, this is why I say tongue and cheek that such thinking is taking us back to the Dark Ages where the codified standard sacred text was embattled and suppressed by the sacral-society that is Rome. The believing community thrived on the TR/KJB tradition from the persecution of Rome and being burned at the stake to the great revivals of North America and still amidst this, modern text critical theory started a new track so now we have the TR and the NA/UBS.
Back on track. In the present discussion we are in the realm of words and not whole books but the mechanism for the believing community receiving them as authentia is the same - the Holy Spirit working in His people concerning His words. When the second iteration replaced the first it should not be construed that God’s people misplaced their faith in a work that was in progress as much as ancient saints put their faith in a canon that was still in the process of codification.
My view is only as self-refuting as an ancient Christian who only had the OT and maybe one or two books of the NT but still maintained his Bible to be pure and without error. If purity, certainty, and authority can be said with entire books “missing” from the canon, then it certainly can be said if some scholars purport to have found some errors, omissions, elisions, conflations etc. I say purport because even those who don’t thing the Masoretic Hebrew and TR are word for word the word of God, do not know with certainty that said texts are not so, thus at very least it is rationally permissible for the T.R. to be word for word the inspired autograph.
Saints are not perfect, nor have I ever said such a thing. In fact in my last post I gave examples of the propensity of saints to sin. What I have said is this, God’s words are substantively different than man’s words i.e. unique with specific regard to their divinity (II Timothy 3:16). Saints regularly submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives whether it be to take a job or marry girl X or boy Y (Ephesians 5:18). These unique words are God’s and are therefore autopistos, trust-worthy in and of themselves. That is to say, God alone is a fit witness unto Himself. (Jeremiah 23:21-22 and 29:23). Now we put it together, saints submit to the leading of God in the person of the Spirit regarding these unique words and accept them as what they are, God’s words. Man’s words are not divinely unique therefore this process does not apply to them. Man’s words are not God’s therefore this process does not apply to them. Man’s words are not trustworthy in and of themselves, therefore this process does not apply to them.
Brother Jay C wroteMy first reply is, How do you know it is not? If it is the undisputed traditional text of the believing community of the English speaking world for nearly 400 years, why do I have to prove that it is. I’ll let history speak for itself. It seems the burden of proof for why we need to abandon that tradition rest with you.
But HOW do you know that the KJB tradition is the one that God wants us to follow?
You keep going back to “the believing community says so”. That’s not a good enough reason if you are going to posit that God is divinely preserving the texts that underlie one translation.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
Discussion