The Miracle of Biblical Inspiration [Paperback]

M.D. Ph.D. H. D. Williams (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 6, 2009

There are numerous opinions in the literature concerning the meaning of "inspiration" of the Bible such as "the partial view," "the natural view," "the neoorthodox view," "the pagan view," and many others. The explanation of most of the various views is very troubling. Very few positions exalt the true origin of the original Words of the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The positions fail to correctly recognize that the process and the product of "inspiration" is a miracle "once delivered." Dr. Williams' work will help others to understand the meaning of the words associated with "inspiration" in their Biblical context.

Product Details

• Paperback: 132 pages
• Publisher: The Old Paths Publications, Inc. (January 6, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0982060866
• ISBN-13: 978-0982060865
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 5.9 x 0.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 1.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,902,390 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1.0 out of 5 stars Book Lacks Exegetical Depth, June 3, 2011

By 

Thomas Ross (Chesterton, IN United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Miracle of Biblical Inspiration (Paperback)

I am thankful that Dr. Williams believes in the perfect preservation of Scripture and defends the KJV. The reader should be aware that I approach the subject at hand from the perspective that it is acceptable to call accurately translated Scripture "inspired" in a derived sense, referring to the product of accurately translated Word still having the breath of God on it, while the process of giving the Scriptures was completed at one time for ever. One can find a presentation of why this is the Biblical position in my essay "Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture Inspired?" on my website, Theological Compositions. Unfortunately, Dr. Williams' book lacks exegetical depth in its analysis of 2 Timothy 3:16, where the word Theopneustos is a predicate adjective that describes all that is properly called graphe, "Scripture." I will give you a few illustrations of the lack of exegetical depth or proper carefulness in the book.

Dr. Williams wrote a section entitled:

"Theopneustos" and the Greek onstruction [sic] in Context (by the way, at least the version of the book that I read was filled with horrible grammatical errors; hopefully those have now been fixed.)

In this section, Dr. Williams gives an explanation of the verse that is supposed to prove that translations cannot be called inspired. He does not give such an explanation,
however; he simply asserts it. He does not deal with the Koiné parallels with the word Theopneustos. He does not deal with the necessity of supplying the equative verb is
because of the Greek syntax. He concludes: "the proper understanding [is] that: all the Scripture (all the God-breathed Words) of the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Words in the sixty-six books of the canon of Scripture "is given by [sic] inspiration" and "once delivered"( [sic] Jude 1:3) as the prophets and by extension, the Apostles, were "moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pe. 1:21)." However, he does not deal with the arguments in favor of the view in my paper on 2 Timothy 3:16 at all. For that matter, Dr. Williams never deals with any of the references to Theopneustos as product in standard Greek lexica such as A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd. ed. (BDAG), William F. Danker (ed.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000; or the Greek-English Lexicon, H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, 9th ed., New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; or the Patristic Greek Lexicon ed. G. W. Lampe (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007, 20th ed). The fact that Dr.
Williams never cites or deals with the overwhelming evidence that Theopneustos is a product that one can obtain by simply looking in these standard lexica is inexplicable for a work that claims to be scholarly. One wonders if he even looked at these three volumes at any point in writing his book. I have no problem with the doctrine of the section on 2 Peter 1:21, but Dr. Williams never proves that 2 Peter 1:21 deals with the predicate adjective Theopneustos.

Later, Dr. Williams wrote:

(4) "Translational Idealism" is related to the belief that certain translations of the Bible have reached or ae [sic] equivalent to the perfection of the 'received' original Words of God and can be called "inspired." This is "idealism" that stems all the way back to Plato et al. The conclusion that a perfect translation as defined in this wok or even a perfect 'original' text can be achieved by reasoning is the result of the "logic" or the "critical analysis" of men. This is the reasoning of men that was first heralded by Platonism, but it is inappropriate.[lviii] It is a result of "idealim" [sic] or "idealistic" goals. Many ndividuals [sic] may not realize that their claims of a "perfect" or "inspired" ideal translation(s) stem from Greek philosophy. According to Scripture, this cannot be. (4) "Translational Idealism" is related to the belief that certain translations of the Bible have reached or ae equivalent to the perfection of the 'received' original Words of God and can be called "inspired." This is "idealism" that stems all the way back to Plato et al. The conclusion that a perfect translation as defined in this wok or even a perfect 'original' text can be achieved by reasoning is the result of the "logic" or the "critical analysis" of men. This is the reasoning of men that was first heralded by Platonism, but it is inappropriate. It is a result of "idealim" or "idealistic" goals. Many ndividuals [sic] may not realize that their claims of a "perfect" or "inspired" ideal translation(s) stem from Greek philosophy. According to Scripture, this cannot be. First, man is depraved; he is a sinner. Secondly, in a "born-again" man, the old man is still present (Eph. 4:22, Rom. 7:13-25). Words chosen by man to translate the 'received' Words of God may reflect the original perfect "ideal" Words that are God-breathed, but they are not the God-breathed Words. This concept is similar to the doctrine that a born-again man may be complete, but certainly not equivalent to the "perfect" indwelling Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Father. A man is never perfect or equal to any one of the three persons of the Trinity, just as a translated word is never perfect or equal to the "once delivered" inspired Words.

My response to this is:

Certainly the original words of the autographs in the original languages are the ultimate authority for faith and practice, and stand above all translated words. However, before asserting that those who claim the word "inspired" can be used in connection with translations are getting their ideas from Greek philosophy, it would be a good idea to actually look at the Koiné use of Theopneustos and deal with the arguments advanced in works such as my composition on the subject. To ignore such Scripture-based arguments, or to be ignorant of them, and then assert that those who take the position that Theopneustos can be applied in a derived sense to translations are getting their ideas from Plato is incredibly unconvincing and an exceedingly poor argument. Furthermore, while Dr. Williams repeatedly asserts that "ndividuals [sic] may not realize that their claims of a "perfect" or "inspired" ideal translation(s) stem from Greek philosophy," he never quotes Plato or any other Greek philosopher to prove his point. Just as he never deals with any of the relevent uses of Theopneustos in the Koiné, but states, over and over again, that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the one-time process of giving the autographs, so he does not quote Plato or any other Greek philosophers, but states that those who believe a translation can be called inspired are deriving their ideas from Greek philosophy.

A final example:

Dr. Williams wrote:

Properly Translated Preserved Words
Possess the Properties of the Words of God

Without a doubt, the preserved Words of God though proper translating of the Preserved Words of God in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek possess the properties of authority outlined so clearly in Hebrews 4:12, which says:

"For the word of God is quck, [sic] and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

Properly translated Bibles are:
(1) quick (alive),
(2) powerful (2 Tim. 3:16-17),
(3)piercing [sic] (providing signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts, Heb. 2:4), and
(4) a discerner Ecc. 8:5, Eze. 44:23, Mal. 3:18, 1 Co. 12:10).
Therefore, the Preserved Words of God in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek accurately and faithfully translated will carry the authority of the original perfect Words. But, the trnslated [sic] words are not derivatively inspired or doubly inspired (q.v.) because the Word "inspiration" is a biblically technical term meaning God-breathed. It is used only ONCE in the New Testament. In other words, translated Words are not God-breathed, but they may be he [sic] preserved Words of God in a receptor-language (such as Spanish, English, German, French, etc.) if they are accurately and faithfully translated by plenary, verbal, formal equivalent translating using the method of "word-for-word" translating so far as the syntax of a receptor-language will allow.

My response:

Theopneustos is an adjective that describes the nature of Scripture. It is just like the adjectives quick, powerful, etc. Since Dr. Williams admits that translated Scripture, as it is Scripture, is quick, powerful, etc., he should admit that translated Scripture is also Theopneustos. Note the following quotation from my article on this subject:

Compare the following instances of graphe [Scripture] + modifying adjective in the NT:
Rom. 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,); (ho proepeaeggeilato dia toaen propheaetoaen autou en graphais hagiais,);
Both accurate copies and accurate translations can be called "holy scriptures," or else believers had better scratch out "holy" from the phrase "Holy Bible" in the copies they carry with them.
Rom. 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (phaneroaethentos de nyn, dia te graphoaen propheaetikoaen, kat' epitageaen tou aioaeniou Theou, eis hypakoeaen pisteoaes eis panta ta ethneae gnoaeristhentos,)
Notice that the "Scriptures of the prophets/prophetic Scriptures" are used to give the gospel to all nations--so, since all nations certainly do not have the original copies, nor do they know Hebrew and Greek, accurately translated Scripture is still "prophetic Scripture."
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his... Read more ›