Bible? Inspired or Expired?

With all due respect to you as the moderator, that condensed article was over 20 years old. So, I hardly think that I was labeling those on the forum. You know when you throw a stone up a dark alley and hear a yell, you know that you hit someone. I do not write any different than I preach. If the shoe fits . . .! Now, if my doctrine is offensive to you and you are unable to bear it, please tell me know and I will unsubscribe. I do have other places to post. I am not in the habit of watering down what I believe or couching my beliefs in soft soap. I truly belive that the MV's are counterfeits. Obviously, I see no moderator intervention in the rudeness and demeanor of those who lit into me only in a 20 year article and my response to those who are out to skin me in what I believe. I prefer for these posts to not have a personal nature. Herb Evans is not the issue; the Bible is the issue. Still, I have had many experiences with pecking orders.-- Herb Evans

 

Herb Answers Critique

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. -- Herb Evans

This applies to the definitions KJVO's use as well. The key terms they stumble all over and misdefine are inspiration, preservation, "word", and "perfect".

Scitt, you are correct. Let us define "inspiration" from the scriptures themselves. I am prepared to use 2 tim 3:16-18 as I already have done. -- Herb Evans

[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. --Herb Evans

Rather odd argument since the JW's started out using (misinterpretting) the KJV and the Mormon's to this day depend on the peculiar wording of the KJV to sustain some of their non-sense.

They don't want their folks reading from other versions since they might do what the KJV translators promoted- get the true sense of scripture.

Correct again, but JW's saw the trouble that they were in , using the KJB, and decided to get their own translation, incidently their NWT is based on the same texts as the MV's.-- Herb Evans

"educators contend that only the "ORIGINAL" transmission of the scriptures constitutes "inspiration." -- Herb Evans

Who argues this? Can you put some names to this argument?

I don't personally think "transmission" is an accurate term concerning original inspiration. God didn't send the original writers a radio message... He "breathed out" scripture.

You are correct that God did originate the scriptures by breathing them out and into the written word through the prophets and apostles, but that is not the issue. The discussions that I have been in herald the originals as superior to anything else. My comment was a characterization of what educators say about the originals, which can only apply to the initial written scriptures. Of course, some have escaped to the "derivative" versus "direct" inspiration, so that they can have it both ways. --Herb Evans

Quote:
"They hold that the "inspiration of the scriptures" and the "transmission of the Scriptures" are perfectly synonymous terms. " -- Herb Evans

Citation please. FTR, the transmission of scriptures via the manuscripts is hardly an ignored field.

But you don't beleive that the manuscripts are inspired--NO? I am sure that you are familiar with that in that so many beleive that only the originals were inspired. That started with Ben Warfield (Princeton) who was running into trouble with supposed errors in the KJB. Mind you, my article is 20 years plus old. -- Herb Evans

The Originals
The "ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS" are lost and no living person has ever seen them (a serious flaw in most Bible Corrector theories). -- Herb Evans

Nope. What God said has not been lost. It has been "transmitted" as He sovereignly chose by the hands of men. He providentially insured that His "Word" would not be lost. It is more than obvious to the rational observer that He did not choose to do that by preserving a single set of words.

Now, note that I said that in regard to the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS and ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION. Other than that, I agree with this except for your last statement. Did Jesus and Timothy have a single set of words or merely fragments? -- Herb Evans

The first problem with KJVOnlyism is that they confuse preservation of God's "Word" with preservation or reinspiration of a single set of words.

That'S not my problem, unless you believe Jer. 36 was RE-inspiration. I believe in the continuance of inspiration and preservation by whatever mechanics God chooses. -- Herb Evans

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. -- Herb Evans

Precisely why KJVOnlyism is NOT TRUE. It relies on the opinion of people who deny the obvious evidence as a standard for determining which Bible version is correct on any particular word or phrase.

No, my conclusion differs from yours in that I contend that there is a Holy Spirit consensus of God's conservative and fundamental people, based upon the discernment of God's people by excercizing themselves in knowing between good and evil. Your most conservative and fundamental Baptists recognize the KJB to be God's Book. The more liberal brethren gravitate to the liberal versions. -- Herb Evans

True and irrelevant to the validity of the copies and faithful translations. However it is very relevant to the notion that the KJV is inspired since we know for a fact that the originals were not given in English of any era.

I would like you to prove that the "ORIGINALS" were originally written in Hebrew and Greek scripture. We do not know in what they were originally written. We can safely assume that they were not written in English, but it gets harder beyond that. Now, you are giving away your view that the scriptures must be written in Hebrew or Greek to be inspired, proving what the educators say. Do you have scripture for that view? Or is that assumption and/or opinion.-- Herb Evans

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? -- Herb Evans

This is where your whole argument collapses. God's breathed Word is absolutely NOT restricted by human words, ink, or paper... not even those of the originals.

Accurately transmitting what God said is far more important than arguing over what words to use to express it.

<snip>

The argument could be made that one is clearer or more accurate than the other but neither can be declared inaccurate nor ineffectual.

As I already said--not the paper and ink but the words. But the inspired paper and ink convey the inspired words. We are to be judged by Jesus words, so we must be able to get them. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. The MV's are not even accurate. The KJB is both accurate and inspired. So, my argument does not break down. Your argument does, for you must rely on what Professor Whatchamahamaczysz says is accurate. To have the words that are spirit and life, you must get them from somewhere. The word of God is alive, it is quick and powerful and can discern the thoughts and intents of your heart and mine. -- Herb Evans

Let us go a step farther and suppose that we made photocopies of the "ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS" before they either perished or were lost. -- Herb Evans

Let's go a step further than that. If God was as hung up on words as KJVO's are or if it were His intent to give us a single set of words... then why didn't He have the originals carved into stone or etched into metal? Why did He cause the original penmen to use ink and paper that were corruptible being subject to the fall?

Why? Because it is His Word, not ink and paper, that is alive. It His Word as in the power of His divine will and revelation that is alive... not some set of human words.

Well, you must be talking about an mystical word out there in space somewhere and not something tangible. The Lord told us that EVERY word of God is PURE and that His words were PURE from the beginning and that His word would not depart out of his people's mouth or their seed's seed's mouths from henceforth and for ever, it seems like I am on His wave length and you are not. That is not a hang up; it is a Bible believer plus. -- Herb Evans

Would the photo copy scriptures be inspired? Be alive? Have God's breath in them? -- Herb Evans

The answer is no. It would still be corruptible pen and paper. It would still be human words. it would be the meaning of those words that is alive... not the pen strokes.

Well, if your answer is NO, we do not have any common ground to discuss the matter. You are demonstrating what you took issue with above that only original transmittion is inspiration. -- Herb Evans

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; -- Herb Evans

Jeremiah was biblically qualified to receive direct inspiration. He was a God chosen and validated prophet. The KJV translators were not. They do not biblically qualify to receive inspiration since they were not prophets or Apostles. God specially chose the men by whom He delivered revelation... the last one died about 100 AD and his name was John. He personally punctuated the Bible at the end of Revelation.

There is that word "direct" inspiration. Does that mean that you believe that man-made doctrine of "derivative" inspiration? You mean all you have to do is pontificate who is qualified and who is not to receive inspration? You do not have a verse of scripure for who God uses to preserve his inspired word? Well, looks like it is you that believe in "double inspration" at least in Jeremiah. Thanks for the try. -- Herb Evans

 

I am trying to avoid argument with you especially over personal issues and motive judging. I am here to exchange scripture and to debate the issues in order to further truth. I am not here for personality conflicts. Ignore what you wish. You could have posted private to me as to your annoyance rather than use a public protest on me. Let's just not exchange posts. Simple as that. I will not be baited to render evil for evil any longer. -- Herb Evans

 

I did not know that either one was snipped. Still, I stand corrected, and I do believe in playing by the rules. But some folks bait newcomers into getting into trouble. As far as I was concerned he was playing by the rules, and I responded accordingly. But I did not see any reproof on him as on me. --Herb Evans

 

Well, the KJB was not a revision, it wa a new translation. There was only one family of English Bibles, except for the Catholics. My article wa not an invite to historical issues. You can ask those folks about this when you get to heaven. My article was about the NOW and NOW. The KJB is alive and inspired NOW. Its qualities have been proved over 400 years. The earlier short lived Englsih bibles speak for themselves. They are no longer in print except for reference. They were a temporary interlude. -- Herb Evans

 

I did not know that they were banned nor did I know that they were moderator snipped. Now, I do, and I will not use them. Are there any other words banned, before I use them. How about lie, lying, and stupid and other perjoratives, which some folks on here are prone to use. -- Herb Evans

 

It was my thread, and I hardly would go off topic on my own thread. Trash what you will, especially if you cannot address what you trash. . -- Herb Evans

 

Well, it is actually a1769 that I use with standardized grammar and spelling minus printers' errors. You can even use a JW Bible, since it is a free country. The scriptures does not MANDATE the use of anything, but they do give you certain scriptural principles to excercize your discernment between good and evil. but you do not even have to pay attention to scriptural principles. -- Herb Evans