If you are interested in reading the Holy Bible on the internet. Click the following site:
The Holy Bible
If you are interested in just hearing the Holy Bible read to you via the internet. Click the following site: (my personally favorite is already preprogramed, but you can change it to another version)
The Audio Holy Bible
If you are interested in daily devotions. Click the following site:
Daily Devotions
==================================================================================
Questions:
What does it mean to say that the Holy Bible is “inspired”?
To what extend were the biblical writers controlled by the Holy Spirit as they wrote?
Were the New Testament writers aware that their writings were inspired by God and therefore authoritative?
What are some of the incorrect views of the inspiration of Scripture/”
You have acknowledged that there are "scrible (sp) errors" in the Bible. What makes you think these errors do not occur in passages that you base your entire worldview upon?”
There are so many different interpretations of what the Bible is saying. How do I know which one is right?
===============================================================================
What does it mean to say that the Holy Bible is “inspired”?
Inspiration doesn’t mean the biblical writer just felt enthusiastic, like the composer of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Nor does it mean the writings are necessarily inspiring to read, like an uplifting poem. The biblical Greek word for
inspiration literally means “God-breathed.” Because Scripture is breathed out by God – because its
originates from Him – it is true and inerrant.
Biblical inspiration may be defined as God’s superintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities – and even their writing styles – they composed and recorded
without error His revelation to us in the words of the original autographs. In other words, the original documents of the Bible were written by men, who, though permitted to exercise their own personalities an literary talents, wrote under the control and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the result being a perfect and errorless recording of the exact message God desired to give to us.
The writers of Scripture were not writing machines. God did not use them like keys on a typewriter to mechanically reproduce His message. Nor did He dictate the words, page by page. The biblical evidence makes it clear that each writer had a style of his own. (Isaiah had a powerful literary style; Jeremiah had a mournful tone; Luke’s style had medical overtones; and John was very simple in his approach.) The Holy Spirit infallibly worked through each of these writers, through their individual styles, to inerrantly communicate His message to us.
To what extend were the biblical writers controlled by the Holy Spirit as they wrote?
In his second letter, Peter provides a key insight regarding the human divine interchange in the process of inspiration. This verse informs us that “prophecy (or Scripture) never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). The phrase
carried along in this verse literally means “forcefully borne along.”
Even though human beings were used in the process of writing down God’s Word, they were all literally “borne along” by the Holy Spirit. The human wills of the authors were not the originators of God’s message. God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record His message. Rather, “God
moved and the prophet
mouthed these truths; God
revealed and man
recorded His word.”
1
Interestingly, the Greek word for “carried along” in 2 Peter 1:21 is the same as that found in Acts 27:15-17. In this passage the experienced sailors could not navigate the ship because the wind was so strong. The ship was being
driven, directed, and
carried along by the wind. This is similar to the Spirit’s driving, directing and the carrying the human authors of the Bible as He wished. The word is a strong one, indicating the Spirit’s complete superintendence of the human authors. Yet, just as the sailors were active on the ship (though the wind), not the sailors, ultimately controlled the ship’s movements,) so the human authors were active in writing as the Spirit directed.
Notes:
1. Norman Geisler and William Nix,
A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 28.
Were the New Testament writers aware that their writings were inspired by God and therefore authoritative?
In 1 Corinthians 2:13 the apostle Paul said he spoke “not in words taught us by humans wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.” In this passage Paul (who wrote over half the New testament) affirmed that his words were authoritative because they were rooted no in fallible men but infallible God (the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth who was promised to the apostles to teach and guide them into all the truth (see John 16:13).
Later, in 1 Corinthians 14:37, Paul said, “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.” In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul likewise said, “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” Again, the reason Paul’s’ words were authoritative is because they were rooted in God, not in man. God used Paul as His instrument to communicate His word to us.
What are some of the incorrect views of the inspiration of Scripture/”
There are at least seven incorrect views of inspiration that are circulating today. Briefly:
The “Dictation Theory” says that God raised up men, prepared the men
and vocabularies, and then dictated to them the very words which they would put down in Scriptures.
The “Natural Inspiration Theory” says that the writers of Scripture were simply men of great genius. There was nothing supernatural involved. These were men with talent similar to that of Shakespeare.
The “Mystical Theory” says that the writers of Scripture were simply Spirit-filled and Spirit-guided believers, like any believer today.
The “Neoorthodox Theory” says that the Bible is a fallible and often unreliable “witness” to the Word of God. In a fallible way, it points to Christ.
The “Concept Inspiration Theory” holds that the concepts, but not the very words of Scripture, were inspired. So, for example, the concept of salvation in Christ may be inspired, but the words used to communicate this concept are not inspired and therefore may have mistakes.
The “Inspired Purpose Theory” says that although the Bible contains many factual errors and insoluble discrepancies, it still has “doctrinal integrity” and thus accomplishes God’s purpose for it. The Bible’s infallibility is carefully limited to the main purpose or principles emphasis of the Bible – that is, salvation.
The “Partial Inspiration Theory” says that certain parts of the Bible are inspired- that is, the portions that would otherwise have been unknowable (creation, prophecy, salvation by faith in Christ, and so forth).
The correct view of inspiration involves God’s supertendence of the human writers of Scripture so that, while allowing for their own personalities and writing styles, they recorded without error, in the words of the original manuscripts, God’s word to us.
You have acknowledged that there are "scrible (sp) errors" in the Bible. What makes you think these errors do not occur in passages that you base your entire worldview upon?
Let me use the very spelling error you make in your question to explain this matter. It is not "scribble errors" it is "scribal errors". It comes from the word "scribe" which is the name of the persons who were copying the texts and teaching them. Among the Jews the scribes usually were also the teachers of the Law, in the NT period scribes often were professional copyist and might not have understood all they copied and this fact accounts for a number of the errors they made. [But it also shows that there was no deliberate distortion. In order to distort deliberately you have to know what you are writing.]
We have thousands of manuscripts and the errors can be detected by comparing the manuscripts because not everybody makes the same error at the same place.
Let us suppose we have 5 manuscripts and they read in a particular sentence:
Several of the copyist of the text make some scribal errors.
Several of the copist of the text made some scribal errors.
Several of the copyist of the text made some scribal errors.
Several of the copyist of the text made some scribble errors.
Several of the copyist of the text made some scrible errors.
What would you conclude is the true text?
Well, to any reasonable person it would be clear that the copyist is original and "copist" is a copy-error / misspelling. Furthermore, the their activity was not "scribbling" but copying and the adjective to 'scribe' (the name of their profession) is 'scribal', so 'scribal' was original and the one who wrote "scribble" was only seeing the 'scrible', recognized it was wrong and thought it was a copy error of the word 'scribble' instead of 'scribal'. Because he misunderstood where the mistake came from he made an wrong 'correction'. The context will make clear that we are talking about a past action, so it is 'made' instead of 'make'.
And even though only the third line [of five versions] is error free, we can with absolute confidence conclude what the original correct text was.
And because we usually do have several hundred handwritten old copies we have many with the correct version and also many with errors but the textual critics can trace the errors pretty well and with very high confidence establish the original text. And the above example also shows, that even with the lines containing the error, the message was clear and the same in all of them.
Out of over 15,000 lines in the New Testament only 40 are in some doubt. All others are established above all reasonable doubt. And no Christian doctrine depends on any of the doubtful lines.
