How Would We define terms Preservation/revelation/inerrancy/Inspiration?

Google search is your friend. Don't ask so many questions.

 

The BB has a search function. Your topic here has been covered several times on the BB in the past. You might like this one --

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=47319

 

Inspiration: http://bit.ly/uyxofH
Preservation: http://bit.ly/v6fXBH
Revelation: http://bit.ly/uUCuki
Inerrancy: http://bit.ly/s69fkX

 

The Scriptures are the written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, John 16:13) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators. God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to these prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words in the original languages that were given by God, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also seem to refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26).

Other verses also demonstrate that preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly relate to the doctrine of preservation. Rolland McCune observed: “Preservation is also implied in the warnings against corrupting the text of Scripture by either adding to or removing its words” (Systematic Theology, I, p. 52). McCune asserted: “The various warnings about adding to and subtracting from revelatory texts presuppose that the original documents were guaranteed to comprise God’s complete revelation and that subsequent copies were not” (p. 94). KJV defender Thomas Strouse claimed: “The severe warnings in Scripture about tampering with the written word demand the view that the Lord did not want any of His inspired words changed. John’s colophon predicted a terrible destiny for anyone tampering with the text” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 241). Thomas Strouse also wrote: “Joshua and Israel had the responsibility to guard the very Words of the Torah, to not allow any deviations (cf. Dt. 4:2; 12:32)“ (p. 110). In this same book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: “Further instruction in the Old Testament to Israel regards carefulness with the stewardship of His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 both admonish the nation to neither add to nor take away from God’s Word” (pp. 105-106). Concerning Revelation 22:18-19 in his commentary on that book, John Walvoord wrote: “Though frequently in the Bible there are other warnings against tampering with the Word of God, this is among the most solemn (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 1:3)“ (p. 338). Concerning these same verses in Revelation in his commentary, Lehman Strauss noted that “there are similar warnings in other parts of the Bible,“ and then he cited them. Strauss wrote: “In the days of Moses, Solomon, Paul, and John, such warnings from God were quite apropos inasmuch as all books were hand-copied by scribes“ (p. 362). In his commentary on Revelation, Theodore Epp wrote: “In the last Book of the Bible there is a warning against tampering with the Word of God” (p. 444). These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense. men These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands also reveal that the copies were not given by a miracle of inspiration. For a king or whoever copied them to be able to “keep all the words,“ they would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them (Deut. 17:18-19). In addition, a logical deduction from these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed. These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected. Just as the source definitely had to be the standard, authority, and just measure for evaluating the copy so the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:15, Lev. 19:36, Matt. 7:17). That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture indicate.