Inspiration and Innerancy origins?

[longdistancerunner]

Where do the concepts of inspiration of the Bible and inerrancy of the Bible come from. And do they apply to both OT and NT?

[zeek]

Where do the concepts of inspiration of the Bible and inerrancy of the Bible come from. And do they apply to both OT and NT?

II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" KJV

[B.H.]

Revelation warns against adding or taking away from that book. There is an epistle that warns about adding to the word too I believe. Jeremiah 8 laments about the lying pen of the scribes turning the law into a lie.

History shows there is great variance between biblical manuscripts. My favorite example is Esther. Our copy of Esther is only about half the length in content we find other ancient copies of Esther that goes into detail what God was doing behind the scenes.

Jeremiah and Ezekiel can vary up to about an eight in content and verses all copies seem to have are often worded different or changed completely.

The thing is you have no way of knowing what was supposed to be there or what is supposedly true or not. Believing scholars can't prove what is legitimate because they themselves disagree over variant texts. The unbelieving ones are more honest and admit you can't really know.

[longdistancerunner]

Where do the concepts of inspiration of the Bible and inerrancy of the Bible come from. And do they apply to both OT and NT?

II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" KJV

There wasn't a Bible or scripture when Timothy was written normally dated 65 AD, it was just a letter.

[zeek]

Where do the concepts of inspiration of the Bible and inerrancy of the Bible come from. And do they apply to both OT and NT?

II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" KJV

There wasn't a Bible or scripture when Timothy was written normally dated 65 AD, it was just a letter.

While it is true that the New Testament as we know it (or really even the Old Testament for that matter) hadn't been compiled and solidified, there were scriptures that were believed to be the word of God. Acts 18:28 makes reference to Apollos using "the sciptures" to convice the jews that "Jesus was Christ". Also, in II Timothy 3:15 Paul reminds Timothy that "from a child thou hast known the holy sciptures..." There is also reference in the Gospels of Jesus going to the synagogue and reading from Isaiah and declaring "this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4:21 In another place in the gospels, that escapes me at the moment, Jesus told the Jews "ye do err not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." There were certainly writings at the time Paul wrote to Timothy that had long been considered to be holy, authoritative missives from the divine.

[longdistancerunner]

II Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" KJV

There wasn't a Bible or scripture when Timothy was written normally dated 65 AD, it was just a letter.

While it is true that the New Testament as we know it (or really even the Old Testament for that matter) hadn't been compiled and solidified, there were scriptures that were believed to be the word of God. Acts 18:28 makes reference to Apollos using "the sciptures" to convice the jews that "Jesus was Christ". Also, in II Timothy 3:15 Paul reminds Timothy that "from a child thou hast known the holy sciptures..." There is also reference in the Gospels of Jesus going to the synagogue and reading from Isaiah and declaring "this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4:21 In another place in the gospels, that escapes me at the moment, Jesus told the Jews "ye do err not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." There were certainly writings at the time Paul wrote to Timothy that had long been considered to be holy, authoritative missives from the divine.

Seems to me this is largely a question whether you think Christianity at this time was reformed Judaism and the writers were referring to Judiac law? And don't most scholars consider the author to Timothy to be anonymous and not Paul?

[zeek]

It seems to me that the understanding in the first century as to the nature of Christianity, whether it was simply reformed Judaism, or an altogether new religion or how we might view it today, is irrelevant to the original question as to the origin of the concept of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Also, the authorship of the II Timothy letter isn't important to this question or discussion, the point being that there were writings that predate that letter that were already accepted as inspired and authoritative. I know it is very circular for the Bible to declare its self inspired, but if you ask the average fundamentalist about inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible that verse from II Timothy is the most likely response you will get. I get deer in the headlights responses pretty frequently when I point out to believers that you can't use the Bible to "prove" the existence of God. The Bible only becomes relevant once you have established that there is a God and then only if that god happens to be the god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob or the "God of the Bible" and not one of the thousands of other possible gods that are available.

[Shane R]

The church has always believed in some form of inspiration for her texts. Innerancy is an entirely separate matter. That was a product of the Princeton school of evangelical theology under the influence of B.B. Warfield and others and has been carried forward to the present day by such figures as John MacArthur and Wayne Grudem.