Customer Reviews

The Miracle of Biblical Inspiration

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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 epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (hoaes kai en pasais tais epistolais, laloaen en autais peri toutoaen; en hois esti dysnoeaeta tina, ha hoi amatheis kai asteaeriktoi streblousin, hoaes kai tas loipas graphas, pros teaen idian autoaen apoaeleian.)
False teachers do not have the original manuscripts, but they twist both copies and the translated Word to their own destruction.
Consider the related language in Hebrews 4:12:
For the word of God is quick, 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. (zoaen gar ho logos tou Theou, kai energeaes, kai tomoaeteros hyper pasan machairan distomon, kai diiknoumenos achri merismou psycheaes te kai pneumatos, harmoaen te kai myeloaen, kai kritikos enthymeaeseoaen kai ennoioaen kardias.)
Both accurate copies and accurately translated Bible is "the Word of God." Here, then, accurate copies and translations of Scripture have the adjectives "living," "powerful," "sharper," "piercing" (adjectival participle), and "discerner" applied to them.
In another related text, James 1:21 speaks of the "engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" (emphyton logon, ton dynamenon soaesai tas psychas hymoaen), where "engrafted" is an adjective and "which is able to save" is an adjectival participle. Certainly people can be saved from hearing accurate copies and accurate translations of the original manuscripts, or nobody who is alive today would be truly regenerate--nor would Timothy himself have been saved (2 Timothy 3:15). (While it is cannot be proven without any doubt, it is very likely that Timothy's mother and grandmother taught him the Scriptures in what was almost surely his first language, Greek, so the "scriptures" he knew from his infancy were not even original language copies, but the Word translated; cf. 2 Timothy 1:5; Acts 16:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:15.)
Consider, then, 2 Timothy 3:16:
All scripture is . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (pasa grapheae . . . oaephelimos pros didaskalian, pros elegchon, pros epanorthoaesin, pros paideian teaen en dikaiosyneaeÇ;)
Certainly the description here pertains to accurate copies and translations of the Word. Both are unquestionably profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction? If copied and translated Scripture are not "profitable," believers today are in real trouble!
So, copied and translated Scripture has the adjectives "holy," "prophetic," "able to save," "living," "powerful," "profitable," etc. properly applied to it.
Consider then 2 Timothy 3:16a:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God (pasa grapheae theopneustos)
Accurate copies and translations properly have the adjective Theopnesustos, "God-breathed," applied to them as well as all the other adjectives listed--including the adjective "profitable" later on in 2 Timothy 3:16.

It will not do for Dr. Williams simply to assert that Theopneustos is different from all other adjectives that are properties of Scripture. He needs to prove it, and he has not given any proof whatsoever, only mere assertion, copiously repeated. Translated Scripture is "inspired" in 2 Timothy 3:16 in the same sense that it is "profitable" in the very same verse. Translated Scripture is not living, powerful, prophetic, or inspired in the same sense that the original language texts are. God's Words translated are, in a derived sense, profitable, living, powerful, prophetic, and inspired. It is not consistent to say that the translated Words of God are powerful, living, prophetic, and so on, but deny that they are inspired.


In conclusion,

As indicated in the introduction, I am a friend of those who stand for the preserved Words of God, dictated only one time, in a miraculous process that will never be repeated, in the autographs, and perfectly preserved in the Hebrew and Greek words that underlie the Authorized Version. I am an opponent of Ruckmanism. I am thankful for Dr. Williams' stands for Biblical Baptist doctrine and Biblical, militant fundamentalism in many areas. I appreciate his sincerity and his desire to oppose the strange, the weird, and the heretical notions perpetuated by Peter Ruckman and his supporters, including his totally false notion that the KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew texts and is advanced revelation. However, his book is not going to be successful as a refutation of Ruckmanism, nor will it successfully advance the cause of a correct understanding of the nature of inspiration, for the following two main reasons:
1.) Dr. Williams never, ever deals with the essential arguments for a derivative inspiration position. He never even looks at the Koiné usage of Theopneustos. He does not even deal with the texts cited in standard lexica such as BDAG, Liddell-Scott, or Lampe. From all that appears in the book, the thought does not even appear to have occurred to him to do so. He never looks at the syntax of 2 Timothy 3:16 and related texts in the New Testament. He never explains why he is willing, as he professes himself in the book, to apply the adjectives of Hebrews 4:12 to translated Scripture, but is unwilling to apply the adjective Theopneustos to translated Scripture. He never explains why the adjective "profitable," within 2 Timothy 3:16 itself, can be applied to translated Scripture, but the adjective Theopneustos cannot. Instead, he sets up a straw man that compares a derivative inspiration position to dynamic equivalence in modern Bible versions. It is unfortunate that Dr. Williams wrote an entire book that is supposed to be a refutation of derivative inspiration (and other views that he believes are false), but he ignored the Scriptural basis for the derivative inspiration position. The reader who hopes for an honest, careful, exegetical evaluation of 2 Timothy 3:16 will have his hopes dashed and feel like he has wasted his time reading Dr. Williams book.

2.) Dr. Williams' book is poorly written and is filled with typographical, grammatical, and syntactical errors. These errors make Dr. Williams, or whoever typed his book out for him, look like an ignoramus. They are extremely irritating to anyone, such as this writer, who values good English. Dr. Williams' book reflects badly upon the Dean Burgon Society and even upon his book's thesis. Many readers will reject what Dr. Williams says out of hand because they will assume that if he cannot be careful enough to spell his words correctly, he cannot be trusted with his facts. (When I sent this review to Dr. Williams, I was glad to hear him indicate that the many grammatical, syntactical, and typographical errors in the version of his work I read were introduced in the process of his book's preparation for posting on the Internet, and that he was not responsible for them. He also stated that these errors have, after I wrote this review, been corrected. While I have not gone back and reread his entire book after he contacted me and told me that the grammatical and typographical errors have been corrected, I am glad to publish Dr. Williams' affirmation that he was not responsible for these mistakes.)

Dr. Williams is, I believe, a godly and sincere brother in Christ who has a desire to stand for righteousness and oppose the Ruckmanite heresy from the commendable stand for preservation taken by the Dean Burgon Society. Both he, and the Society, would do well to stop recommending or promoting the book The Miracle of Biblical Inspiration and evaluate the actual evidence for a derivative inspiration position as set forth in works such as my (much shorter!) essay, "Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, `given by inspiration of God' in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version" or similar compositions. At the very least, if they wish to continue to affirm that the adjective Theopneustos is different from all the other adjectives that are employed in the Bible for Scripture, and that it alone, unlike all the rest, does not pass over to translations, they ought to actually fairly present the position that they are opposing and deal with it.