It's funny to hear silly papists puke about protestants and Baptists belief in the scriptures alone or Sola Scriptura. of course they say this because "The Church" is always right and never contradicts itself right? Ha! Only in a fantasy land where transubstantiation is actually true and Catholicism is Christian. I mean, antichrists, uh..I mean popes never dig up their predecessor, put them on trial and condemn as a heretick: do they? Funny you should ask: they do!
This is not going to be an in-depth study of the doctrine of inspiration; but just a quick analysis of basic and common sense information about how to use a dictionary. First of all, let me be transparent: IF inspiration and God-breathed mean the same thing, it is my opinion that 'God-breathed' is a much easier term to grasp and understand mentally. And IF inspiration and God-breathed mean the same thing, and IF 'God-breathed' is easier to understand, why didn't any other pre-modern version translation ever say 'God-breathed'? Was Tyndale a fool? The answer is no. Tyndale was not a fool; those who say the scripture is 'God-breathed' are the fools.
Let's be clear: people who say the scripture is 'God-breathed' mean that God breathed out the very words of scripture. The key phrase here is 'breathed out' just as it says the Re-Revised RSV A.K.A ESV - "All scripture is breathed out by God..." The problem with this definition and the translation is it is contradictory to what scripture teaches about the production of scripture AND it adds to just one more contradiction between the Authorized Bible and the non-authorized ones. Keep in mind, you have been taught or heard that inspiration/God-breathed/breathed out by God all mean the same thing. Here is the definition (as it relates to breathing) of inspiration: the drawing of air into the lungs; inhalation.
Do you know anyone that believes God inhaled the words of scripture? If all scripture is breathed out by God the AV1611 should say, "All scripture is given by expiration of God..." because expiration is the act of breathing out or exhaling.
What is interesting, is almost every secular dictionary includes the theological definition of words amongst their list of definitions where applicable. So what do secular dictionaries say inspiration means in a theological context? From dictionary.com: a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul & the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced. Notice there is nothing about breathing, breath, wind, or anything relating to the respiratory system. Are these modern secular dictionaries wrong? 99% of modern Bible 'scholars' can't be wrong, can they? Yes they can be, and they are. Compare the dictionary.com theological definition with 2 Peter 1:21 - "...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Now maybe you're thinking this is just some modern redefining by dictionary.com. Well here is how Noah Webster defined the word in his 1828 dictionary: the infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence; or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind, which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Tim.3.
Again, nothing about breathing for breath is present. But what about earlier translations and how they rendered it? The old Syriac and Ethiopic scriptures render "given by inspiration of God" as "by the Spirit of God" and "written by the Spirit" respectively.
Now where did dictionary.com and Webster 1828 get this theological definition of inspiration? Obviously, from the scripture itself; the same place you should get your theological definitions and not from the medical field.
Remember, 2 Peter 1:20 says: "...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." "God-breathed" is a private interpretation.
In this 400th anniversary year of the Authorized Version of 1611, almost everyone (even anti-KJV apostates) is getting a good word in for the Book. Most of these big publishers such as Thomas Nelson and Zondervan are really doing it to make some extra money, but nevertheless they are still attempting to 'honor' it. But one has to find it interesting that even some atheists have said some surprisingly nice things about the Holy Bible. I understand these people don't actually believe that it is the word of God, but just a masterpiece of English literature, it is still interesting. And none more interesting than a recent article featuring Christopher Hitchens appearing in the The Christian Post. I hope you will take time to read this article if you have not done so already.
What makes this article so interesting is his comparison between the modern perversions and the AV. Hitchens had the opportunity to read Philippians 4:8 at his father's funeral. And when compared to the CEV he said the contemporary version was "pancake-flat" and more suited for "a basement meeting of A.A." Hitchens also said of the modern perversion, "[T]hese words could not hope to penetrate the torpid, resistant fog in the mind of a 16-year-old boy..."
In terms of updating the Holy Bible to make it more relevant Hitchens weighed in and opined, "To seek restlessly to update it or make it 'relevant' is to miss the point, like yearning for a hip-hop Shakespeare." Quoting Job 5:7 he also states, "'Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,' says the Book of Job. Want to try to improve that for Twitter?"
Hitchens also weighs in on the stupidity of gender-neutral language in the TNIV and the re-packaged TNIV, the NIV2011. But Hitchens' discernment of these things has to make you wonder about so-called Christians that cannot discern these same, seemingly obvious points. I'm willing to give some grace to Christians that have not studied this issue and ignorantly use a perversion because they are just following what their pastor said or they just took the advice of the bookstore salesman. But you have to wonder about people that have studied the issue and continually fight God's book for the English speaking world; men like James White, John Ankerberg, the professing Christians on these translation committees. If Hitchens can discern these truths WITHOUT the Spirit, why can't saved people that have the Spirit abiding in them? Is the Spirit of God abiding in them? Or are they part of a conSPIRacy, led by another spirit; blindly or willingly? (Psalm 2)
Today is Saint Patrick's day. And while, admittedly, most people who celebrate this are probably a bunch of college students planning on getting drunk and missing Friday's classes, there is some truth to learn from the real man commonly called Saint Patrick.
There are two great resources for you to see about the real Patrick of Ireland; not the Catholic picture you have most likely been exposed to. Both links are by Bro. Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest, of Berean Beacon. The first is a video produced by Bro. Bennett (about an hour in length) about the Real Saint Patrick, his background and beliefs (and if you know anything about Theology/doctrine you will quickly discern Patrick was anything but a Popish person) and the second is a six page PDF with much of the same information. Pick your poison and enjoy hear the truth about real saint of God.
The Real Saint Patrick (Video)
The Legacy of the Real St. Patrick (PDF)
This quote about the irony of textual criticism and the Nicolaitans that practice it is from Pastor James Knox. I think you'll find it funny, ironic, and true.
"How odd that a man and his friends sit upon antique furniture in a study surrounded by a collection of old books, listen to classic music which is hundreds of years out of date, play "the sport of kings" on great-grandfather's chess board and criticize the Holy Bible (AV) because it contains a dozen old words which are no longer in common speech!!"
Posts
All Comments
© Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
