White and Wallace vs. Gipp and Chambers

[AmazedbyGrace]

White and Wallace vs. Gipp and Chambers

" ...here's a brief clip of Dan Wallace and I pointing out the many circular arguments of Sam Gipp and Joseph Chambers on the Ankerberg Show twelve years ago..."

Wallace and White

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Where was the perfect word before 1611?  That was a good question.  Another good question:  where is the perfect word today?

 

[Timotheos]

Where does this notion of a "perfect word" come from?  Is it a requirement based on God's character?  Can't the perfect God speak to his people through imperfect means?

 

[FSSL]

Where does this notion of a "perfect word" come from?  Is it a requirement based on God's character?  Can't the perfect God speak to his people through imperfect means?

Isn't the biblical concept the "pure word of God?"

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Where does this notion of a "perfect word" come from?  Is it a requirement based on God's character?  Can't the perfect God speak to his people through imperfect means?

When I got saved in an IFBC, I was taught about verbal plenary inspiration- all the text of the bible in the original languages was inspired or God-breathed, that the Holy Spirit carried the writers along so as to prevent error. Some have said the Holy Spirit was like a boss giving dictation to a secretary.  I don't know about that, I believe the writers obviously wrote the words according to their experience and learning as well.  Then I was taught that God preserved the original writings in the KJV.  Other versions weren't forbidden in our church, but a lot of IFB preachers at that time pounded the fact (in their minds) that the KJV was the only good English bible.  There was a differing opinion at that time called non-verbal plenary inspiration that meant that the bible could contain, say historical errors, but the concepts or main truths were still inspired.  That was the major disconnect between IFB and anyone who would say the KJV has errors.  It still is in a lot of circles.  The problem has always been this in their thinking:  if there is one error, there could be more, and how can you trust any of the text?  Today's mainstream thinking is that God did promise to preserve his word, but didn't say how he would do it, so it is every man for himself when it comes to versions.  I don't make it a practice to criticize anything that God has preserved of the ancient texts.  I have problems with the KJVO as well as the textual critics. That leaves me in no man's land sometimes.  I guess that most people now think the bible versions contain  the word of God, but they aren't the perfect word of God, as they all have mistakes.  That is a sad place to be, imo, always wondering if there are more mistakes, and what did God really say.  The mantra of the minority text supporters is that no major biblical doctrines are changed by the differences.  Ok, then why do they make such a big deal out of things sometimes?  Aren't they really just majoring on minors?  Seems to me the words of Paul come in to play here when he said he didn't come to baptize (or be involved in all the petty arguments), but to preach the Gospel.  I think that is where God is leading me, to forget the petty differences and to focus on getting out the Gospel in what ever way I can.

 

[rsc2a]

I guess that most people now think the bible versions contain  the word of God, but they aren't the perfect word of God, as they all have mistakes.  That is a sad place to be, imo, always wondering if there are more mistakes, and what did God really say.  The mantra of the minority text supporters is that no major biblical doctrines are changed by the differences.

Personally, I don't get hung up on whether or not a word here or there is different. I don't believe the words themselves are nearly as important as the story God is trying to tell us.

If I tell my kids the story of the three little pigs and my wife tells my kids the story of the three little pigs, does it matter if we use the exact same words? Which is the point of the story: that the second pig built his house out of sticks (no branches...no sticks!), or that second pig was just a little less lazy than the first pig and the wolf still blew his house down?

First and foremost, the Bible is a story: a story about God redeeming a people. From Genesis to Revelation, this is the story of the Bible. Are the details important? Sometimes. But only as they tell us more about the story. Like Paul said,

"And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

Even when Paul was teaching on marriage or slaves or head coverings or anything else, he believed that he was preaching Christ and Him crucified. Everything else was an outworking of that overwhelming truth. Even the Bible, which is God's self-revelation of Himself is only God's word in that it points us to Jesus, the perfect representation of God, the Word of God.