Where is God's breath applied?

So what you’re saying is:

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

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

Rob

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Otherwise how could one preach/teach confidently from them?

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

Rob

 

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

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



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

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

 

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

Rob

 

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

 

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

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

Rob

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Inspiration is restricted only to the authors of our Bible.

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

 

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

That is a good example.

 

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