How did the original manuscripts come about?

Will do. I bark up a lot of trees and they are not always the right tree, so...

Upon third or fourth thought- I AM barking up the wrong tree, so forget I said anything.

 

Actually, isn't the truth though that Conservative Christians have viewed just the Originals as being inspired, that God preserved in the hebrew/Greek "copies" that complied into what we call the Hebrew/greek text today?

That ONLY originals had direct inspiration though?

 

Comparing Christ's humanity and Scripture has been named Incarnational Inspiration.

It has some important implications as discussed in a book by Peter Enns.
(Enns promotes the idea of Incarnational Inspiration; comparing Christ’s divinity and humanity with the human and divine aspects of Scripture).

A snippet from a journal by a detractor of Peter Enns,

His controversial book, Inspiration and Incarnation discusses this theory, the evidences for it, and its implication in detail,
…and in my opinion is bang on!

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Isaiah 55:8–11, ESV

Rob

 

So that author was denying that the Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the texts and was able to keep them from error?

if That is that authors viewpoint, would not want to have him teaching in any facility that I am in contact with!

 

I'm not sure what you're saying - there's a double negative there

Enns would fully agree that the HS inspired our Scriptures.

Rob

 

But thast there were neither inerrant or infallible?

 

This is true. I trace it to the failure of many evangelicals to stand firm on the inerrancy of Scripture. Evangelicals put cooperation and unity above loyalty to the Truth of God's Word.

At the International Conference on World Evangelism in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1975, Francis Schaeffer delivered an address saying that the inerrancy of Scripture was where evangelicals must take their stand or lose all. Some of that address is in his little book, No Final Conflict (InterVarsity, 1975), where he writes:

Schaeffer was prophetic. Nowadays many evangelicals quote heretical neo-orthodox sources as scholarly without even blushing.

 

Thanks for the enlightenment. I didn't know about Enns.

Two things that are similar are not the same. A brief comparison is all that I meant, not theological parity. The hypstatic union of Christ is a union of God with man. The Scriptures, though breathed out by God, are a written source, being alive metaphorically but not literally.

 

Down boy, down!

 

LOL!!:laugh:

 

believe that in mid 1970's also , harold Lindsell came out with His book about the battle for the Bible, as he saw that even Seminaries like Fuller theological had got 'caught" upin watering down belief in Bible, and going down road of "limited" infallibility/inerracy, as when it spoke to spiritual things, was correct,but allowed for errors in history, science etc in Bible!

Infallible when discussing spiritual things, errors apart from that!

 

If I may throw in my 2 cents worth, the above statement would only go back to the writings of A.A. Hodge who was the first to put forth this "idea" that only the orginal writings were inspired. This position was promoted more by B.B. Warfield and his writings. So this position is only as new as the mid 1800's.

From reading this most interesting thread, the one point I see is that no one has a clear answer to the "original" question (pun intended). Personally, I believe that we have been taught incorrectly.

One poster quoted I Peter 1:21, which IMO says nothing about anyone writing anything. In fact it talks about "prophecy OF the scripture".
The OT prophets were "moved" by the Holy Spirt, just as (I hope) preachers are today (except foretelling the future is done away with).

We have been taught that the WRITERS were inspired. But this raises all kinds of issues. Jeremiah didn't write his book, so who was inspired? Paul didn't write all his letters. Who was inspired? The speaker or the writer? Both? Double inspiration? I talked to a head prof at International Baptist College about this point and asked how they handled or taught this issue. He flat out said they didn't. Because there's no answer (for them).

No doubt all the writers of Holy Writ were directed and "moved" by the Holy Spirit. But this does not equate with "inspiration". I Peter 1:23 says, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

As God's breath made Adam a "living soul", so has God's breath made the Scriptures "alive". I believe this happened after the writings were completed. But how else would God preserve His written word? These "alive" writings have been preserved by the same miracle. When Jesus said not one "jot or tittle" would pass away, He was holding up and reading a COPY! Which was just as "alive" as the "original". AMEN!! GLORY!!

Proof? Faith, my brethren. II Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". "IS" given, not "was" given. That's why I have God's inspired word in my hand today. I HAVE the Holy Sciptures. Do you?

 

I do too, thank you for asking. And, I'm sure that 100% of those on the board would say the same thing. Mine is derived from the original manuscripts and says in II Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;..." So, what is your point?

 

He's KJVO, and he believes that A.A.Hodge and B.B.Warfield were 19th century liberals who started the line of thinking that only the original manuscripts were inspired by God.

He thiks only the KJV is legit Scripture and that any other version is not really the Word of God. He feels sorry for us and wants us to see the error of our ways.

 

Sir, do you know me? No, you do not. The original question was to avoid translation issues which I did not bring up. I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth for me. I'm quite capable of doing that myself. But just to reply to your [snip] response, I've used many translations while preaching. I own scores of translations. [Snip]

 

Welcome to the BB. I hope you won't mind that I won't allow many dubious statements to go unchallenged.

You may be able to say that Hodge popularized the idea in America but he was NOT "first" by far. Have you ever read the 1646 WCoF? In Chapter 1, Section VIII it states in part (my underlines) --

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; ...
​

Original writings means in the original languages. Are you familar with Francis Turretin (1623–1687)? He wrote in part (Question 10, Part II; and Question 11, Part VI of his Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, "21 Questions on the Doctrine of Scripture".) --

By "original texts" we do not mean the very autographs from the hands of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, which are known to be nonexistent. We mean copies (apographa), which have come in their name, because they record for us that word of God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit. ...

The reasons are (1) only the sources are inspired both in substance and in wording (II TIm. 3:16); therefore only they can be authentic. For what men of God wrote they wrote guided by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:21), who, lest they fall into error, determined (dictavit) not only the substance but also the words, which cannot be said of any translation (versio). (2) They are the norm and rule by which all versions are to be tested,- as the ectype must be referred to the archetype and a brook is recognized from its source. ...
​

 

It is a common misconception that the writers were inspired. The writings were inspired. An organic, verbal plenary view of inspiration places primacy on the inspiration of the writings. Illuminationists tend to be more comfy with inspired writers.

 

I must say I'm confused. Your quotes support my thesis. The CoF quoted states "kept pure" which I take to mean that the copies were inspired as well. Hodge did not believe that.

 

Technically, inspiration refers to the process by which the Scriptures were given--"All Scripture is given by inspiration." In the Greek "given by inspiration" is one word, theopneustos, actually an adjective meaning literally "God breathed." So, inspiration is the process by which God gave the originals through human agency.

As you say, the basic doctrine is that the Scriptures were inspired in the original mss. However, I use the term inspiration to refer to copies, mss if you will, in so far as they are identical to the originals. I don't see how we can avoid using the term in regards to the mss. A document doesn't lose it's basic qualities by virtue of being copied. Translation, of course, is a whole new ball game, and I don't refer to a translation by the term "inspiration."