Bible? Inspired or Expired?

DID OUR INSPIRED BIBLE EXPIRE?​

. . . the word of God which liveth and ABIDETH FOR EVER. -- 1 Peter 1:23

. . . the word of God IS QUICK . . . and IS a DISCERNER of the thoughts and intents of the heart . . . -- Hebrews 4:12

Define Your Terms​

As with all man made theological definitions, the [snipped] professor's definition of "inspiration" is fallible nor errant and is subject to error and therefore subject to examination. Any error in definition can mean a more serious error in concept.

[snipped] educators, like the JW's, have discovered that if we allow them to define or redefine Bible words, then they can establish their own pet theories and heresies. Both [ snipped] and JW'smust be challenged about whether they have a scriptural basis for such arbitrary definitions.

Transmission​

[snipped] educators contend that only the "ORIGINAL" transmission of the scriptures constitutes "inspiration." They hold that the "inspiration of the scriptures" and the "transmission of the Scriptures" are perfectly synonymous terms. All the emphasis, in most fundamental universities, is placed on whether the "Originals" were transmitted mechanically, dynamically, verbally, or by illumination; while the "QUALITY" of the scriptures, after they have been transmitted, is all but ignored.

The Originals​

The "ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS" are lost and no living person has ever seen them (a serious flaw in most Bible Corrector theories). Moreover, if those, who hoot and holler about them, would ever find the "original manuscripts," they would not be able to tell if they really were really the "ORIGINALS" or not or if they were even copies of the originals. They have told us repeatedly that the Bible was "ORIGINALLY" written in Hebrew and Greek. Yet, no one can actually prove that they were so written. They can assume, suppose, surmise, and deduce, but no one can come up with either a proof-text or concrete evidence. Although we do not discount such an original Hebrew/Greek theory, we can base neither our definitions nor our convictions upon it. The first five Books could have been written in Egyptian, the language in which Moses was educated and the country of his people for 400 years. Hebrew is the language of Canaan (Isa. 19:18). One thing is "fer sure,” it twarn't Hebrew that Moses was speakin' "down thayer in Egypt." Much of Daniel is written in Syriac as well as Ezra. The conversations in the Gospels were surely not spoken in Greek. The point is, there had to be some translating going on somewhere, any way that you look at it. Selah! Think of that!

After the "ORIGINALS" had been initially transmitted, or inspired, or "God breathed" . . . what then? Do the "originals" cease to be inspired? Do they cease to be alive? Do they cease to contain the breath of God after the initial act of transmission is over? Are they still inspired after 40 years have past? Are they still alive? Do they still contain God's breath in them? Did they expire?

Let us go a step farther and suppose that we made photocopies of the "ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS" before they either perished or were lost. Would the photo copy scriptures be inspired? Be alive? Have God's breath in them? We insist that they must answer these questions with an emphatic, "YES!" It is not the parchment or the ink that is inspired or alive on either the originals or the subsequent copies; it is the words that are inspired and alive, for they are Spirit and they are life! God did not preserve the parchment and the ink; He preserved His "word," the "scriptures."

God can and did recreate the parchment and ink of the "ORIGINALS," which they burned in Jeremiah. He did not preserve an UN-inspired Bible; He preserved an inspired Bible and it did not expire! It is alive! If it is the scripture, it is inspired. If it is not the scripture, it is not inspired. Only the scriptures are said to be inspired. It cannot even be said that the apostles were inspired. Moved or borne by the Holy Ghost? Yes! Inspired? No! The inspired copies that Timothy knew as a child (2 Tim. 3:15,16) were certainly not the "ORIGINALS," something, admitted by the Bible Correctors themselves. Still, these copies were inspired.

Alive!​

Anything that God breathes into or inspires is alive for eternity (somewhere). God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul ever after (man's fall complicates our analogy, but man's soul live somewhere forever). God breathed His Spirit into the scripture, never to be breathed into again (so much for secondary inspiration). The KJB, which we English-speaking folk possess today, is alive. Inspired! It has the breath of God in it and it will never ever expire, because it lives and abides for ever ( 1 Peter 1:23).

Living things give birth to other living things. Dead things cause the vermin that feed upon them to reproduce. These [Attack on Bible snipped] have never displayed any living characteristics as has the King James Bible for almost 400 years. God's stamp of approval is on the King James Bible. Man's stamp of approval is on the [snip]. It is not a question of which Bible we use, it is a question of which Bible does God use.

Some people have objected and do object by saying that people are saved through these [attack on Bibles snipped]. They will not put us in the position of endorsing a doctrine because of someone's supposed experience. If we are going to do that, we might as well join the tongues speakers and healers tomorrow. Another man’s experience does not bind me. Let us suppose that folks do get saved through perverted, counterfeit bibles. Still, folks can get saved by reading a commentary. It is possible but not probable. People get saved through tracts, which have only a small portion of the scripture. Is it the corruptible seed of the counterfeit bibles, the commentaries, and the tracts that does the job, or is it the incorruptible seed that gives them birth? ( 1 Pet. 1:23). Shall we use scripture to address this doctrinal issue, or should we use opinion and situation ethics?

The Test​

Inspired scripture (2 Timothy 3:16,17) "IS profitable!" The "ORIGINALS" or even the direct copy of the "ORIGINALS" are not profitable to us right now, nor were they profitable to Timothy in his day. Timothy had only copies of copies of the "ORIGINALS." We are told that the scriptures must be PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness and that they must throughly furnish the man of God. Furthermore, they must be alive and be a discerner, according to Hebrews 4:12. The scripture must be an incorruptible "BEGETTER" also, according to 1 Peter 1:23 and James 1:18. We submit that out of all the English Bibles IN USE today, as a whole, only the Authorized King James Bible can pass ALL these requirements. Neither Strong’s concordance, W. E. Vine’s dictionary, nor history can throughly furnish the man of God.

The King James Bible is unmatched in producing revivals, missionary endeavors, souls saved, founding of sound churches, founding of sound Bible colleges and institutes, doctrinal fidelity, separated morals, influence of Kings and countries, and even translation in other tongues without the benefit of the Hebrew and Greek. It is alive!

Choose One​

Baptists "claim" to have but one authority for faith and practice . . . the scriptures. Is it too much to demand and expect that we live up to this claim? Brethren, we are not going to be judged by a history book, a creed, a church decision, a Hebrew/Greek, lexicon/concordance, a Hebrew/Greek Grammar, or a pointy headed scholar or professor, or a Bible in another language. We are going to answer to the word of God (John 12:48) in English. We can believe that the King James Bible is:

1. not inspired but not alive
2. not inspired and alive
3. inspired and alive

If we believe that it is neither inspired nor alive, our position is consistent, but we must admit preaching a dead Book. If we believe that it is alive but not inspired, then we are inconsistent and contradictory, claiming that the Bible can be alive without the breath of God in it. If we believe that the King James Bible is both inspired and alive, then we can join together in demanding unconditional surrender to a Bible that has not "EXPIRED" by all [inflammatory term snipped] !

Conclusion​

He that HATH my word [possession], let him speak it faithfully . . . – Jer. 23:28

You have to have the faithful word to speak it faithfully. We have it; we possess it. Others are still looking for it. We have the inspired scripture in English, the King James Bible. The so called originals have deteriorated and disappeared from the face of the earth. No, the paper and ink may have deteriorated and disappeared but not the WORDS THAT ARE SPIRIT and LIFE (John 6:6). Let us speak them faithfully . . . that is . . . those of us, who have them.

Much water has passed under the bridge since a handful of Bible believers first took this issue to the Christian public. Today, hundreds of books and articles are appearing in every nook and cranny of Christendom (seminary students are reading them under the covers at night with a flash light). [inflammatory term snipped] educators, frustrated and unsuccessful in ignoring the issue, are unable to find WHOLESOME words (1 Timothy 6:3) or words that cannot be condemned (Titus 2:8) to dispute or gainsay the issue. They have resorted to everything but the scriptures themselves, i.e., weasel wording, situation ethics, name calling (nuts, heretics, Ruckmanites), and words that men teach (1 Cor. 2:13) in order to prove an "EXPIRED" Bible.

--by Herb Evans

 

Well, Brother Tony, I did not see any refutation of those suppositions. Perhaps, you could post us your views on inspiration and preservation USING the SCRIPTURES and your convclusions to those scriptures. It is always nice to get your opponents' views and the scriptures that they use. -- Herb Evans

 

The question is, which one God is going to use. You seem to think that choosing a Bible is like choosing a pair of shoes. I started out that way over 40 years ago, when I used to use each version for whatever agenda I was trying to get across. Then I ran across a little pamphlet, "God Only Wrote One Bibe." I realized that something was wrong with what I was doing, and I recovered myself. Hop that you do also. -- Herb Evans

 

Since I have dealt with this loose cannon and his looser canon on another forum, and since he has been unable to accept my challenge to present his views on inspiration and preservation, there is no common ground for our discussion. I refuse to sit back and allow someone to take potshots at my position, while they hide their position behind their denials. Thank you Roby for your scholarly post. The topic of my thread is whether our inspired Bible has expired, despite whatever agenda you want to inject into it. -- Herb Evans

 

Brother Tony, I did not see anyrefutations of these socalled suppositions. Perhaps, you could post us your views on inspiration and preservation from your Bible. We are always delighted to see the oppositions' use of the scriptures in this regard. Show us your non-man-made theology from the scriptures. -- Herb Evans

 

You freedom readers are not free, if you have no scriptural view of inspiration or preservation, something that you refuse to address. I have not been avoiding Dr. Cassidy, he has been avoiding me after I challenged his man-made doctrine of "derivative" inspiration. No, Jesus was not using the wrong version. But what version do you think that He was using? Huh? Do you think that He was using the wrong version? Do you think that He was reading it in Greek in Luke 4:16-21? Huh?

That's your justification? Hmmmm? Yopu still have not given us scripture for your views on inspiration and preservation. Why? You must do that before we can ever get to your multi-version freedom. -- Herb Evans

 

No, I plan on debating my Local Church only position as well. However, on my two initial posts to feel out the forum, it is the other folks that wish to debate the issue with me, and I am accomodating them. I also plan on posting the ills of the SBC and other convention type denominations. Thanks for your concern. -- Herb Evans

 

Shame on Tom Cassidy! I have responded to all his posts indirectly, but he has not responded to all mine directly or indirectly. I do not care to have to endure cassidy's insults, i.e., stupid, liar, idiot, and other namecalling and perjoratives as well as belittling one's education. That is why I have responded indirectly to him as I am doing now. -- Herb Evans

 

Praise the Lord, Jesus, I have found another one that stops up his ears. I do not know if he gnashes on you with his teeth, however. Thank you Jesus! Praise de Lawd! Hallelujah (Hebrew). -- Herb Evans

 

If any of the posters here would like to see the thread where Herb has repeatedly refused to respond to me just let me know and I will post the URL.[/QUOTE]

By all means! I would like you to post the url. Please do it, but do all of it where you and I are concerned. -- Herb Evans