----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 02, 2005 20:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Albert
Einstein & Karl Barth
JD sayz I can go with thought
inspiration quicker than "verbal plenary." Word for
word dictation would eliminate the personalities of the
individual authors -- which is not the case
http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=85&qa_id=146
Verbal plenary inerrancy means that one believes all of
the Bible is inspired down to the very words of Scripture. The belief in
non-verbal plenary inerrancy would mean that one believes
all the Bible is inspired, but only as to its concepts�not all the
words�meaning that it might contain historical errors.
Charles Ryrie in his Basic Theology has this to say about the idea
of �concept inspiration�:
Some are willing to acknowledge that the concepts of the Bible are
inspired but not the words. Supposedly this allows for an authoritative
conceptual message to have been given, but using words that can in some
instances be erroneous. The obvious fallacy in this view
is this: how are concepts expressed? Through words. Change the words and
you have changed the concepts. You cannot separate the two. In order for
concepts to be inspired, it is imperative that the words that express them
be also. Some seem to embrace concept inspiration as a reaction
against the dictation caricature of verbal inspiration. To them
if inspiration extends to the words, then God must have dictated those
words. In order to avoid that conclusion they embrace the idea that God
inspired only the concepts; the writers chose the words, and not
necessarily always accurately. But God�s intended concepts somehow came
through to us unscathed.
Regarding the issues of inspiration, the following also from Ryrie�s
Basic Theology may be helpful:
While many theological viewpoints would be willing to say the Bible is
inspired, one finds little uniformity as to what is meant by
inspiration. Some focus it on the writers; others, on the
writings; still others, on the readers. Some relate it to the general
message of the Bible; others, to the thoughts; still others, to the words.
Some include inerrancy; many don�t.
These differences call for precision in stating the biblical
doctrine. Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one�s belief
in full inspiration was the statement, �I believe in the inspiration of
the Bible.� But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the
text it became necessary to say, �I believe in the verbal inspiration of
the Bible.� To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were
inspired, one had to say, �I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of
the Bible.� Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to
the Bible, it was necessary to say, �I believe in the verbal,
plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.� But then
�infallible� and �inerrant� began to be limited to matters of faith only
rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including
historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became
necessary to add the concept of �unlimited inerrancy.�
Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous
teaching.
All (plenary) the very words (verbal) of the
Bible are inspired by God. Matthew 4:4 says, "Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." First
Corinthians 2:13 says, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,
but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are
freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing
spiritual things with spiritual." Jesus says in John 17:8, "For I have given
unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and
have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that
thou didst send me." Jesus says in John 6:63, "It is the spirit that
quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you,
they are spirit, and they are life."
The Neo view of imperfect words of men is
wrong
First, Jesus Christ was here, and
interacted with people face to face. If God can reveal Himself truly in the
person of Jesus Christ, with all the limitations of being human, then He can
certainly reveal Himself truly in language.... When He was on earth He was
truly and unequivocally God. The incarnation serves as the ultimate
foundation for God's linguistic communication with us (see Heb.
1:13).
Second, people can speak because God
speaks. Language was not a human invention according to the Bible. God spoke
first and by speaking created (Gen. l).... He did assign to man the task of
naming the animals ... and perhaps most things, but speech was given to man.
... Anything that can be said in one language and culture can be said in any
other (it may take longer in some languages than others).... Thus, although
a particular language may influence the thought's form, it does not limit or
determine thought.
Third, according to the Bible, humans were
made 'in God's image.' Therefore they have an innate ability to think
thoughts patterned after God's thoughts. Linguistic communication from God
to humans is possible, though never exhaustive, just as communication
between people is possible though never exhaustive (Dan McCartney &
Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand, Wheaton: BridgePoint,
1994, p. 177)
What shall we say? The neoorthodox view is subjectivism at its
worst. If the Bible has errors in some places, then how can it be trusted in
others? Geisler & Nix say, 'In no meaningful sense may God's
authorship cover the whole of Scripture and, at the same time, the errors in
Scripture' (Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General
Introduction to the Bible, Chicago: Moody, 1981, p. 41).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 7:51:21 AM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course. I was speaking of the original ms.
We do realize that we are reading English translations of such, and must
therefore rely upon the best available sources. We don’t need to
squabble about those again. Izzy
And you question the use
of "imagination?" You make assertions about manuscripts that do not
exist. I can go with thought inspiration quicker than "verbal
plenary." Word for word dictation would eliminate the
personalities of the individual authors -- which is not the
case. Your last sentence indicates a desire to avoid further
discussion. Alrighty then.
JD
