The parts of Scripture which speak of itself, aka: self-attestation (unless one wishes to discredit the credibility of any manuscript group) clearly says that the original authors of the Bible were inspired and because they were inspired what they wrote possess infallibility, inerrancy and supreme authority (cf. Ex 24:4, 34:27,32; Num 11:16-29; Lev 26:46; 2Chron 33:18; Ps 78:5; Jer 30:2; Dan 10:21; Hos 8:12; Zech 7:12; Lk 1:1-4; Acts 1:16, 28:25; Rom 3:1-2; 1Cor 2:12,13, 14:37; 1Thess 2:13; 1Tim 6:3f; 2Tim 3:16,17; Heb 1:1,2; 1Pet 1:11,12; 2Pet 1:21; 2Pet 3:2,15,16; 1Jh 1:1-5; Rev11,2,11,17-19; 22:6-8; et al). Thus, we speak of the original autographs as being inspired. But I see nothing to indicate that after all that God had instructed His servants to write, inspiration continued. Of course, Pentecostals, Charismatics, sects, cults, and others disagree and believe that God continued and even continues to speak inspired truth, aka: divine revelation, today. To me, to say... regardless who said/wrote it, that copies of the originals share the same inspiration, i.e., they are directly written by the Holy Spirit through men is without warrant and even dangerous.

One of the problems which you certainly are aware of is the perennial argument over which manuscripts are "genuine"; the TR or some other? I sat through classes dealing with Textual Criticism and never was convinced that either side was correct. Much of it was argued in pride and not substantial evidence to make the case either way. So, again..... my concern is not whether the TR or the Majority Text, or Westcott-Hort, or Kurt Aland, has the "correct" manuscript evidence, but rather, how the evidence we have is translated. I have 100% confidence that what I read in a KJV or ASV is the Word of God which God through the Spirit gave to His prophets and apostles. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]