Derived Inspiration

My view is that inspiration only applies to the original manuscripts. Inspiration means God-breathed. God did not breathe out a translation or a copy. What is derived is the benefits/qualities of the original God-breathed work.

Andy

 

God in his sovereignty selected the people to atually pen the manuscripts. But the processs all began with Him. It is His message to us. He did use the distinctives of each author. Each wrote in their own style and word usage. The message is a living breathing powerful message that has eternal consequences.

 

I believe that God influenced every valid translation or copy of His word. He was fully aware of every change in every language that was to come after He first presented any part of His word to man, and He simply won't allow his word to become corrupted. Sure, there are bogus bibles out there, but God's word itself is free of corruption.

 

God's word is free of corruption if you know which is God's word and which isn't. That is the proof. We do know that the text was corrupted and now the textual critics are trying to do their best to establish the original text. I do believe we have the best text we have ever had.

So would you say God inspired some pedobaptists to falsely translated the Greek word baptisma and to transliterate it "baptism" rather than immerse or the correct translation of that word depending on its context? It comes from the word when translated means to dip immerse or wash. Baptism is an invented word. It is not a correct translation but merely a transliteration to avoid pedobaptism. What they did was to translterate the word rather than translate it. Is that inspired by God?

 

BAPTIST BOARD BULLETIN!!!!

This is the first time in the history of my tenure here on the BB that I agree 100% with a Dr. Bob Griffin post in the Bible Versions/Translations Forum.

Nice job Doc!

 

Think of it this way; suppose I send you a letter containing the testimony of how I was saved and called into the ministry etc... You were blessed by that testimony so you decided to type it and send it as an email to some one you thought might enjoy it as well. Suppose they forwarded it on to other people from there and it ended up going to a Missionary friend who operates a Bible College in some foriegn country. He has some young men preparing for the ministry that he feels would be blessed by this testimony so he translates it into their language so they can understand it.

Now, if you copied it accurately in your email, and if your friends forwarded it properly without adding or taking away from it, and the Missionary accurately translated it, it can still be said that all along the way, the testimony was in my own words.

Derived inspiration is simply that same process. If what we have in English is an accurate reflection of the original languages, then they are still the inspired Words of God. You have to ask yourself the question, "If they are not inspired, at what point did they cease to be inspired?"

 

Derived Inspiration? I hope that I am getting the sense of what this means, in precise terms, from both Dr. Bob and Pastor Bob. I have a question, and also a comment.

Question: What Scripture verse(s) or passages would promote such a view?

Comment: whatever happened to Infallibility and Inerrancy? Methinks that the line has been blurred between 'derived inspiration' and infallibility. If God's Word is infallible, wouldn't this be the more precise term to use instead of 'derived inspiration'? I think a problem arises with the fact that the original autographs are the only thing that God had inspired (theopneustos), and the quality of inerrancy (the Word being sharper than any two edged sword....) runs through to the copies in that, although not perfectly representative of the originals in the exact wording and letters, the copies, being faithfully transmitted despite human copying errors, faithfully reflect the infallibility of God's Word.

The reason I would have a problem with 'derived' inspiration is that the miraculous event of inspiration only happened once with the autographs, period. To insert the teaching of 'derived' inspiration is to insinuate that the copies are also 'inspired' in the same sense of a miraculous event as the original autographs were. Inerrancy doesn't really fit the picture unless one takes this doctrine and apply it to the copied manuscripts. This is why I would be careful to be as precise as possible when describing such a new term. Perhaps between the both of you (Dr. Bob and Pastor Bob), you can hash out the definition with Scripture references.

The other problem with derived inspiration is that I think it's a trojan horse developed by KJV-onlyists (and some KJV-preferred folks) in order to circumvent the long-standing doctrinal positions (see the Westminster Confession and the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, for example) of an inerrant and inspired original autograph(s) and an infallible Bible from which we have errant but faithfully reproduced copies (manuscripts and printed Bibles). They (the KJV-onlyists) would promote this 'doctrine' to apply only to the KJV/MT/TR and claim that theirs is the only biblical 'solution' to the Bible text, just like they promote their views of 'preservation'.

 

I am not sure where you got your information but derivative inspiration was not formulated by KJVO's or even KJVP's. It has been around for a long time. Read the articles by Larry Pettegrew of Master's College and Seminary. He makes note of the orthodoxy of the derivative inspiration position.

 

I was not saying that 'derived inspiration' was formulated by KJVo's, but rather that this notion can be taken the wrong way by them. A later post on this topic has helped to clear up something for me, but I would be interested in seeing what Larry Pettegrew has to say regarding derivative inspiration. Obviously, I am not convinced that it is something biblically substantiated, but I think that this can be placed under infallibility.

 

In Textual Criticism class Brother Cassidy showed us a letter from him, written while he was still at Central, regarding his acceptance of derivative inspiration. In fact, of all the points they discussed in the letter, that was just about the only one they agreed on!

 

We're in luck! I was sitting here in the media room reading the Board and Brother Cassidy saw the lights on and came in. He had been working late in his office and thought somebody had locked up without turning off the lights. I asked him for a copy of the letter from Larry Pettegrew and he want back to his office and got it from the file (which is a small miracle in itself as he can never find anything in the office without the help of his secretary!). (Ouch! He just slapped me on the back of the head!)

The letter is on Central Baptist Seminary letterhead, is dated April 20, 1995, and is signed by Larry Pettegrew. On page 2, first paragraph, Brother Pettegrew states, regarding the Niagara Bible Conference (out of which grew the Fundamentalist movement) "These men believed in derived inspiration for the King James Bible, just as I explained in my paper." The paper in question was written by Brother Pettegrew in, I believe, 1994 in defense of the position Central took on the issue of inerrancy. Central had been attacked by some KJVO's for "departing from the fundamentalist faith." The paper was written as an defense of Central's position against those what had launched the attack.

Brother Cassidy brought a copy of the paper along with the above letter. The paper is not dated, is 13 pages long, including end notes, and is titled "The King James Only Religion." On page 5 of that paper Dr. Peggegrew writes, "Yes, translations partake of derivative inspiration as long as they reflect accurately the original documents (II Tim. 3:15)." Dr. Pettegrew expands on that statement in endnote #3, pages 11 and 12. "By the term 'derivative inspiration' is meant that a copy or translation is the Word of God to the degree that it reflects and reproduces the original text. In the words of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 'We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.' K. McCune adds: 'In the Scriptural record, there are examples where the copies of God's Word were considered authoritative in as much as they reproduced the autographa (Deut 17:14-20) . . . . The authority of the copy lay in the assumed correct copying of the inspired original" (p. 20).

"Jesus Christ used a copy of Isaiah to proclaim His Messianic purposes (Luke 4:16-21), and in so doing placed His stamp of approval on the copy as truly representing God's Word. Likewise, the apostles used current copies of the Old Testament in their defense of the Christian message (Acts 17:2; 18:28). Divine authority could only have been granted their arguments as they set forth the true message as given by God, even though they received that message derivatively through copies of the autographs.

"This is not to say that Jesus Christ or the Apostles saw no difference between the original text and their copies and translations. But they ignored any minor differences in their practical use of the Word of God. 'They approached their Bibles in the common sense fashion with which anyone approaches a copy of an original work. To the extent that the copy reproduced the original Word of God, to that extent the copy derived authority as being the Word of God also' (McCune, 23)."

Well, this has gotten all too long, and it is time to get home to bed. I hope you found this helpful.

Oh, and Dr. Bob, Brother Cassidy says "Hello."

 

I just hate the timer on the edit function! I misspelled Brother Larry's last name and the goofy thing won't let me fix it! Grrrrrrr!